sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

[Jamie Nagle <jamie.nagle AT colorado.edu>]

Hello All,

This version of the Beam Test Results NIM manuscript looks very good, including many key improvements from the calorimeter group internally circulated version. In particular the results are quite impressive.    Below are a list of some relatively minor suggestions.

Sincerely,

Jamie

Abstract - First time "electromagnetic calorimeter" and "hadronic calorimeter" are used it should have "(EMCal)" and "HCal".   You are already using these shortened versions later in the abstract itself.

line 19 - "opposing jets in the QGP" -> "opposing jets traversing the QGP"

line 20 - "and heavy flavor jet measurements" -> "and to tag heavy flavor jets"

line 20 - "The hadronic calorimeters ..." -> "The combined EMCal and HCal are used to measure the energy of jets"

line 36 - this reads somewhat awkwardly...    I would say that "The most

stringent requirement on the EMCal performance is that the energy resolution should allow, when combined with track momentum information, for electron identification sufficient for good Upsilon signal to background.   The EMCal resolution requirement for jets is less stringent.    In a Au+Au 0-10% central event, the typical EMCal energy in a 3x3 EMCal tower cluster is 340 MeV.

Thus, an EMCal resolution better than 15%/sqrt(E) is sufficient even in these Au+Au central events to deliver the sPHENIX physics."

Note that in the current text, this is confusing and the typical background energy has nothing to do with the fact that an Upsilon decays into 5 GeV electrons.

line 57 - "Lab" -> "Laboratory"

line 99 - "at two produce sites" -> "at two production sites"

line 110 - "choose" -> "chose"

line 114 - "A drawing..."  - remove this sentence -- already referred to earlier.

line 124 - the reference [12] does not have any additional information?

line 139 - "of light" -> "of the light"

line 147 - I really do not understand this point -- what does this mean?   Why is there this asymmetric shift of the SiPMs..    This needs significant clarification because otherwise the plot makes the response look quite poor

line 149 - "indenting" -> not sure what this really means

line 150 - "shower" -> "showers"

line 154 - "at" -> "to"

line 168 - can one quote the heat load and relate that to the cooling requirement

line 184 - "shows" -> "show"

line 210 - "for 0.2" -> "by 0.2"

line 221 - I think it should be "discolorations"

line 271 - remove both cases of "very"   -- first it is not necessary, but also the agreement is not great..

Figure 8 - numbers are still overlapping...    Maybe one only needs half the values near the readout end.

line 286 - "very clearly seen" -> "seen" 

line 301 - "negligible" - how does one know that, i.e. what is the basis?

Table III - formatting issue - the table is too wide...

line 313 - remove "clearly"

line 373 - "the correction" -> "a correction"

line 385 - put a parenthesis around (-3.68 +/-0.29) %/C

line 387 - I was confused here... is panel b corrected via the online circuit or an offline correction?   If it is the former, this needs to be introduced...    Some discussion of online correcting the voltage versus offline gain correction would be helpful here.

line 419 - related to the above, what is the thermistor used for?   both in this analysis and in the longer term in sPHENIX

line 465 - "405nm" -> "405 nm"

line 484 - "maximum data rate" -> "maximum Level-1 trigger accept rate" 

line 484 - "15kHz" -> "15 kHz"

line 519 - "of a ~" -> "of approximately 10^5"

line 521 - "and is $\Delta p / p \approx"

line 552 - "operatin" -> "operating"

Figure 14 - there is a "[-GeV]", not sure what the dash of negative sign means?

line 618 - if this is momentum then GeV/c

Figure 17 - very hard to see in printed version

Figure 21 - need to remove "sPHENIX Preliminary" labels!

Figure 23 - need to remove "sPHENIX Preliminary" labels

Figure 25 - these fits really are not that good - one should have a comment on what this means?

Figure 29 - what does the relative height of the peaks mean?

Figure 30 - the text I think refers to (a) and (b) as flipped.

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Ron Belmont <ron.belmont AT colorado.edu> wrote:

Dear sPHENIX collaborators,

We are pleased to release to the collaboration the first draft of the T-1044 2016 calorimeter beam test paper, which you can find here: https://wiki.bnl.gov/sPHENIX/images/7/75/Beam-test-results_first-collab-release.pdf .  We greatly look forward to and appreciate your comments within two week's time, by the end of the day on Wednesday, January 25.  For those who have made comments on the previous version released to the calorimeter lists, you can find responses here: https://wiki.bnl.gov/sPHENIX/index.php/T-1044_publication_comments

The author list and acknowledgements are not yet finalized.  If you think you should be an author, please fill out the poll sent out by Dave and Gunther: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdyrXUoNoiS65D6VqVPNPyGZJQYk_5IiIYqcUW9G4ak5c19gw/viewform?c=0&w=1 .  If you have any additional requests for the acknowledgements, please email one of us privately.

With best regards,

The T-1044 paper committee

(Abhisek, Jin, Megan, Vera, and Ron)

--

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

--

||--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|| James L. Nagle   
|| Professor of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder
|| EMAIL:   jamie.nagle AT colorado.edu
|| SKYPE:  jamie-nagle        
|| WEB:      http://spot.colorado.edu/~naglej 
||---------------------------------------------------------------------------------