sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

["Sickles, Anne M" <sickles AT illinois.edu>]

Dear Abhisek, Jin, Megan, Vera & Ron,

Thanks for the draft!  It is very good.  My comments are below.

Anne

———

abstract: “tungsten powder-epoxy” -> “a mixture of tungsten powder and epoxy”

introduction.  I think it would be reasonable to reference the sPHENIX 
proposal somewhere here

line 75: I would simply the notation and use “blocks" everywhere rather than 
add “modules"

line 96: one can’t see the alloy in fig 3 

line 100: THP is already defined

line 109-110: “THP used a centrifuge to distribute the epoxy”

table 1: the text says the purity is 96% but the table says 95.4%  I think 
all of these numbers are THP supplied, and the text should state that.

line 129: “cosmic peak position” jargon

line 135: “The authors note” is strange since we wrote the paper.

line 190 and 192:  25 mm and 2.5 cm are the same distance, it would be good 
to use common units.

line 193: reference for T2K experience

line 195: “scintillation”

table 2 & 1 & line 233: Epotek is written differently in the two tables.

line 237: I think “various” -> “two” and the paragraph starting on line 251 
should be merged with the one starting on line 237 to show that these are the 
two methods

line 266: “16 GeV pion data” I think this is the data discussed with the tile 
mapper starting on line 251, is that correct?  It should be made more clear.

line 270: “It can be seen that most of the points … agree very well”  I have 
a hard time knowing what I am supposed to be looking for here and how good 
“very well” is.

fig 8.  Can this be made double column?  much of the detail is in the upper 
left corner and the numbers start to overlap.

line 304: table 3 shows the values for both HCals

line 319: how closely matched are the gains?

line 380: remove internal id 21

line 502 & 504: I don’t like the “cannot get lost” and “potentially erroneous 
entries”.  If we need to make this point, can’t it just be “robust”

fig 14: plot is grainy; what is -GeV?

line 549: the PbGl is already mentioned on line 530.  

line 553: it would be good to explicitly point out that we have removed the 
beam momentum spread here.

line 612: I think “The data from the team beam T-1044 is analyzed for three 
calorimeter configurations”

line 620: “other effects due to projectivity” what is that?

line 628-629: how does an inefficiency in the Chenerkov lead to contamination 
in the electrons?  shouldn’t we just lose them?

line 750: reference 19 doesn’t not belong in the ()

fig 20: in the 12 & 16 GeV panels the sigma/mu line runs into the axis

fig 21: preliminary labels should be removed 

line 807: hadronic showers are typically deeper

line 819 & 822: “does not depend on the asymmetry” is repeated.  I found this 
paragraph quite hard to understand and I don’t understand the relationship 
between the factor of 2 weight to the inner HCal energy and the cosmic muons.

line 921: The 1 GeV data is shown as well.




> On Jan 18, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Ron Belmont <ron.belmont AT colorado.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> We'd like to remind you that the first comment period will close one week 
> from today.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Abhisek, Jin, Megan, Vera, and Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Ron Belmont
> Postdoctoral Research Associate
> University of Colorado, Boulder
> ron.belmont AT colorado.edu
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sphenix-l mailing list
> Sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-l