sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

["Bailey, Virginia Ruth" <vbailey2 AT illinois.edu>]

Hello all,

The draft looks very good!  Below are my comments for the paper.

Best,
Virginia
---

Fig. 2: caption calls bottom a tower but it is really two towers/one module

Section 3B: The description of the “tile mapper” is unclear, how are the 
tiles positioned/moved to obtain data at 20 different positions?

Fig. 8: The numbers are very difficult to read.

Fig 11: give (a) and (b) the same y-axis scale

Figs 14, 16, 27: make marker styles different to easily read in black and 
white

567: "core of shower" -> "core of the shower"

Fig 17: Right is very difficult to see

646: "avoid events that proton initiated hadronic showers" reword

648: "signals above the pedestal" is unclear- what pedestal?

687-690: "The center of the tower is determined by selecting the hodoscope 
position with the highest average energy response."

714: "without restriction of beam position" is not entirely true. We 
restricted that the electron hits the hodoscope in a 5x5 range around center 
of tower (i.e. we looked at only a single tower)

742: information about tuning of Cherenkov detectors is repeated (already 
mentioned at 679)

754: "This" -> "this"

Fig 22: This is an old version of the figure. A newer version with a 
different way of finding the means exists and I have attached it here.

821: the energy asymmetry is defined but not used anywhere.  What is the 
purpose of it? How does it relate to this weight factor of 2?

Fig 25: "muons has to go" -> "muons have to go"

Fig 27: (a) and (b) descriptions are switched

853: should be Figure 27(a)

Fig 29: Names of the three categories in caption/legend don't match what is 
in text (text uses HCALOUT, HCAL, and FULL while the plot uses combinations 
of EMCAL, HCALIN, and HCALOUT)

912: Linearity is 30(a)

921: energies ranged from 1-32 GeV

937: "is observed giving" -> "is observed, giving"
________________________________________
From: sphenix-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [sphenix-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] on 
behalf of Sickles, Anne M [sickles AT illinois.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:59 AM
To: Ron Belmont
Cc: sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-l] First release of T-1044 2016 beam test paper

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

_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-l mailing list
sPHENIX-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-l

Attachment: positioncorrectiongaussian.pdf
Description: positioncorrectiongaussian.pdf