Hubert van Hecke wrote: > > Hi Masashi, > Below is a mix of comments, mostly in the 'english' category, but also some > others. I realized after I wrote them that it may be a bit late for some of > them - in that case, just ignore. > > HI Masashi, > I read the particle paper, and I have a few small comments: (I am reading the > 2-column version) > > page 1 left-hand column last sentence: > When these densities and temperatures in heavy ion collisions are sufficiently > high, quarks... Done. > pg 1, rh column, par 1 > From this inferences about the conditions at earlier stages can be made. Done. > pg 1 rh col 2nd par: > ...p+p collisions, as final state rescattering plays an important role. Done. > pg 1 in general: should we have some references to some of these general > assertions? I added QM2001 proceeding as a referece. > Pg 2, section II: > Keep all sentences in the present tense: > The target is a lead disk ... > are placed upstream of the target Done. Now all sentences are described as the present tense. > pg 2 rh col par 1: > Freon 12 -> Freon-12 Done. > pg 3 lh col par 2: > The invariant cross section was determined.... Done. > pg 3 figure 3: > I think scatter plots would look better than contour plots. File size of scatter plot was too huge. Therefore, I used 'box' instead of contour. > pg 4 lh col par 2: > H3.....because of the long flight path. Done. > pg 4 lh col par 3: > The histogram (1) -> The histogram labeled (1) ... > -> The histogram labeled (2) ... Done. > pg 4 rh col par 1: > has loose sensitivity -> has weak sensitivity Done. > pg 5 lh col par 1: > The 129 mrad data have better statistics, but it does not seem fair to > completely ignore the 44 mrad statistics when you scale it to match the 129 > mrad spectrum. The fair thing to to is to do scaling of both spectra with > weights according to their statistics. If the 129 mrad are 4-9 times the 44 > mrad statistics, the 129 mrad data would still dominate, but this is a little > different than what you have now. Honestely, the real reason is unknow jows effect.. My conclusion was Monte-Carlo can not estimate resonable efffeciency correction factor. But the momentum distribution has small effect from this uncertainty. > pg 4 lh col par 1 > extraporation -> extrapolation Done. > pg 7 lh col par 1: > the b~5 fm. Should there be a small explanation of how we estimate this? I didn't want to touch this too match.. Additionally, the value ~5fm was wrong. The correct value is about 3fm. > pg 7 lh col last words: > However, the pion inverse slopes...., .... low pT. > I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean 'the pi+ and pi- slopes differ > by 60 MeV at low pT? I don't see that in fig 7. This sentence want to say; pi- inverse slope vary from 100 to 160 MeV in mT-mass<0.6 GeV and also pi+ inverse slope vary from 120 to 180 MeV in the region. Now this sentence was changed by John's suggestion. > ALso refract -> reflect Done. > pg 7 rh col, figure 8: > It is a small point, but the x-axis value for pi- reads 400, but it is not > clear at which ticmark this belongs. Could you make the '400' ticmark higher? The figure 8-10 are marged to one figure. Now it might be better than before. > pg 8 lh col par 3: > In heavy-ion collisions, the pbar/p ratio... > This sentence claims that I should see a difference in the trend in the bottom > of figure 10, last three points only, left versus right. I don't see a > difference. > If you include p+be, p+s, p+Pb the statement is correct. Should the '(S=S to > Pb+Pb)' be dropped from the sentence? That's right. I should be p+Be to Pb+Pb, and now it is corrected. > pg 8 rh col in B: particle yields: > If we assume a thermodynamic description is valid for these systems, then at > chemical freezeout .... Done. > pg 9 lh col top: > 'Note we use the Bolzmann ...except for pions, where we use the Bose...' > Should there be one sentence of explanation there? I moved this sentence to a line after equation. > pg 10 lh col: > can you force the acknowledgements to start on the right? It is difficult to force the position of section. However, now it seems to be fine due to the change of text and figures.