Hi, I have a few comments for the draft. I think the universal freeze-out story is really great, but there are a few small things I would like to take up. 1) I think it is problematic that the abstract refers to p-bar/p ratios when they are not derived here. It is also unclear if these p-bar/p ratio are from the stopping paper or not? line 182. I think we should only have 1 set of ratios for 1 data set. I also do not like that reference 23 is for 2 papers. Why not just the phys.lett B? Suggestion: Use the values from Hans's analysis and write it explicitly. 2) I think it is a bit sad about the Landau story. Are our data consistent with Landau now or not? Why do we not follow up on this? Also, it would IMO also justify better the interpolation (line 191). Suggestion: Make the Gaussian fit and include it in figure 2. Make a figure 2.5 with the energy systematics. 3) Data issues: the pion points for 0.9-1.1 is weird. fiducial yield are 10% lower for pi^-. while fitted yields are 5% higher?! 157.1+-1.7 looks also weird because this error should/must be lower than your fitted value of 178.6+-1.2?! Now I note the same for Kaons so maybe it is just the coverage which is not the same?! In that case I find the table confusing because I think I am comparing oranges to oranges. (and the stat. error is still weird). I also do not understand quoting mt expo fits in a much smaller range e.g. 0.2-1.0 vs power law 0.20-2.00. I also find it misleading to quote K+ as 35.64+-0.92. I think 35.6+-0.9 matches better with the precision. Suggestion: Make a few quality plots available outside the paper, like figure 1 with the charges spectras overlaid for each range + maybe a MRS all overlaid. 4) I would give URQMD a little credit because it gets the trend of universal scaling. The rest is just tuning. A bit more lambdas etc. It even rises a little in k+/pi+. AMPT on the other hand seems to me inherently (=should be untunable) wrong. I might have read the paper a little too quick and missed that some of the points above are actually covered. In that case sorry for that. Cheers, Peter On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 13:24 -0400, flemming videbaek wrote: > Dear Collaborator, > > The paper on k/pi ratios, and rapidity dependence is ready for > collaboration review. It has been long in the working > with input from the committee Pawel, Trine, Dieter, JH and Ian, and > several others at the weekly analysis meeting. > Thanks to this work, and particular the efforts the paper is ready. > Ionut has prepared a version attached in this e-mail, that we intent > to submit to PLB soon. We like to have comments back > you within about two weeks (October 16); Hopefully the paper can then > be submitted shortly thereafter (1-2 weeks). > > best regards > Flemming > > > > Flemming videbaek > videbaek @ bnl.gov > Brookhaven National Lab > Physics Department > Bldg 510D > Upton, NY 11973 > > phone: 631-344-4106 > cell: 631-681-1596 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Brahms-l mailing list > Brahms-l_at_lists.bnl.gov > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l -- Peter Christiansen Email: peter.christiansen_at_hep.lu.se Phone: (+46) 046-2227709 Address: Lund University Department of Physics Div. of Experimental High-Energy Physics Box 118 SE-221 00 Lund Sweden _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l_at_lists.bnl.gov https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Wed Oct 07 2009 - 09:31:27 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Oct 07 2009 - 09:32:47 EDT