Hi Pawel I introduced most of your comments into the text. > 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. I'm looking into this now. It is at least clear that the values in the plot before were incorrect. I think that here in Copenhagen we would prefer to use equation 1 on the double gauss fit so that we treat AGS, SPS, and RHIC in the same way. I think the idea with the double gaus is very nice, but it is for a longer paper I feel. I try to get the values fromn E917 for the fit-parametrization. > 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? I put 5 Gev/fm^3 to be consistent with the high-pT paper. This value was calculated by JJ using the E-T from Djam and my analysis and t-o = 1fm/c and the overlap geometry. Cheers Peter -- :-) --------------------------- )-: Peter H L Christiansen @ NBI EMAIL : pchristi@nbi.dk OFFICE : Tb1@NBI (353 25269) HOME : Frimestervej 22, 1. tv PHONE : 35824930/40840492 :-D --------------------------- \-: _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Fri Dec 12 10:57:54 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 12 2003 - 11:08:06 EST