Hi Peter; First of all we find the analysis a very nice piece of work. However, we have a few comments on the draft dated on Nov. 26. 2003. 1. Regarding Michael's comments: Equation (1) should be divided by N_part/2, rather then 197 because we normalized the net baryon dN/dy to the number of participants. This also means, that we restrict the rapidity loss only to the inelastic NN processes. Maybe we should mentioned this explicitly in the text. Formula (2) should contain N_Labmda-LambdaBar, and also you have to correct the description of the Eq. (2). 2. Looking at the requested by Michael plot of net dY/dy/y_beam it is difficult to understand why there is the same <dy>/y_beam at AGS and SPS - nevertheless this is what we can find in the literature. The quoted AGS and SPS values where obtained by averaging dy over rapidity range from 0 to y_beam with measured net baryon dN/dy. You applied the same method (this can be suspected from eq. (1)) which is consistent with AGS and SPS points in terms of comparison made in Fig. 4. However, there is another method (which was applied both to AGS and SPS data in Ref. [4]) that based on two Gaussian fit to the measured net baryon dN/dy. The <dy> is therefore related to the Gaussian centered at positive rapidity - and the averaging range can be from -inf to +inf. From [4] one can learn that the systematic uncertainty between both methods is 15% for AGS (10.8GeV) and 3% for SPS. This uncertainty should vanish when the contribution to net baryon from target and projectile are well separated along the rapidity. So, one can expect that for our data it is even less than 3%. Moreover, we think that the second method is more suitable to use for comparison between AGS, SPS and RHIC energies because this method is not affected but the large overlap in the mid-rapidity region. It is also strange, that we use scaling factor of 0.64 from the fit to AGS point ignoring the SPS point which has a much smaller uncertainty related to the method applied. 3. You quote 5GeV/fm^3 for the energy density. From my estimates it is about 4GeV/fm^3 assuming <E_t>=0.5GeV, Au radius 6 fm, tau_0 =1fm/c and assuming that charged particles carry out 2/3 of the total energy. However, now we know better <E_t> and it is rather larger than 0.5GeV. Is it the reason for your estimates? 4. In the sentence: "... at least 2 sigma from the K.", we should specify which sigma and what does it mean K (probably the mean value of the K m^2 distribution). 5. Regarding the efficiency corrections for proton ID via RICH: in the veto mode, certainly, you should subtract 5% of pions+kaons due to inefficiency, but above 15GeV/c you can better add 5% of identified proton yield. Best regards from Krakow group. _______________________________________________ pBrahms mailing list pBrahms@zefir.if.uj.edu.pl http://zefir.if.uj.edu.pl/mailman/listinfo/pbrahms _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Tue Dec 9 09:49:42 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 09:50:26 EST