sPHENIX EMCal discussion

[Ron Belmont <ron.belmont AT colorado.edu>]

Hi John, EMCal list,

Overall I found the EMCal section well-written and engaging.  There were some typos and some inconsistent typesetting, which I've fixed via Overleaf.  I have just a few comments/questions below.

Regards,

Ron

General

 - Some of the references are just words, rather than actual bibtex citations.

Section 5.2.1

 - "The calorimeter should also be as compact as possible in order to minimize the size and cost of the hadronic calorimeter."  It's explained later that both the EMCal and Inner HCal will be inside the magnet, but here it's not necessarily clear.

 - Do the symbols radiation length and Moliere radius need to be defined?

Section 5.2.2

 - I found the division of sectors -> towers -> blocks -> towers confusing, since towers is used in two different senses.  I think it'd be better if this could be avoided by use of a different word.

Section 5.2.3

 - A little more detail on the infusion of epoxy into the tungsten powder could be good.  How do you ensure the epoxy gets distributed uniformly?

Section 5.2.4

 - I'm a little confused about the shape of the light guide, which doesn't shrink down all the way to the SiPM collection area.  A little more discussion on the design and light collection efficiency might be helpful.

Section 5.2.7

 - Since this section is empty, I commented it out for now.

Section 5.2.8

 - This section is extremely short and should probably be integrated elsewhere.

Section 5.3.3

 - The title of this section is too vague

Section 5.3.6

 - This section is extremely short and should be expanded, or integrated elsewhere.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 7:00 AM, John Haggerty <haggerty AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello,

I put version 0.99 of the sPHENIX Pre-Conceptual Design Report on an
Indico page here:

> https://indico.bnl.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1483

(the pCDR link) which should be accessible to PHENIX and non-PHENIX
alike.  There is still work going on to complete the document, but the
hard deadline is to have it complete for the review committee two weeks
in advance, on Monday, October 26.  PHENIX tradition is a one week
comment period which will be up next Saturday (October 24), but the
sooner comments can be received and acted upon by the many authors and
editors, the better, so if you could make comments and corrections by
Thursday, that will give us more time to finalize the TeX and clean up
any figures that still need cleaning up.

I would like to try crowdsourcing the small grammatical corrections that
take a lot of time in finalizing a  document like this from many
authors--if you see small changes in working that are needed, try fixing
them on the Overleaf site itself:

> https://www.overleaf.com/2657127qghjbm

This document has really been a collaborative effort, with writing,
editing, figures, simulation, and engineering from a large and diverse
group of people who have come together around this proposal, and it's
gratifying to see it come together.  It has always impressed me how
PHENIX comes together to get a job done, and it looks like sPHENIX is
following that example.

--
John Haggerty
email: haggerty AT bnl.gov
cell: 631 741 3358
_______________________________________________
Sphenix-physics-l mailing list
Sphenix-physics-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-physics-l

--

-----------------------------------------------------
Ron Belmont
Postdoctoral Research Associate
University of Colorado, Boulder
ron.belmont AT colorado.edu
-----------------------------------------------------