sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

["Aidala, Christine" <caidala AT bnl.gov>]

Dear Ron, Abhisek, Jin, Megan, and Vera,

 

Below please find my comments on the paper draft.

 

Best regards,

Christine

--

 

Title – Will there be a follow-up NIM article based on the current beam test?  The title makes is sound like this will be the one sPHENIX calorimetry beam test paper.

 

There is a period at the end of the title.

 

Abstract – If “EMCal” and “HCal are used in the abstract, they should be defined. 

 

I find “Results of the test beam reveal the energy resolution for electrons” slightly strange phrasing.  Perhaps “The energy resolution for electrons in the EMCal was determined to be” or “The measured energy resolution for electron in the EMCal is”

 

Index terms – Typo in “Calorimetry” twice

 

L 2 – Is “planned” the politically correct term here?

 

L 12 – “magnet” -> “solenoid magnet”.  Is there also a reference available for the BaBar magnet?

 

L 15 – “inside a solenoid magnet” -> “inside the magnet”

 

L 19 – “quarkonia” -> “quarkonium” (When using a noun as a modifier, it should be singular.)

 

L 20 - “to study . . . jet measurements” -> “to study . . . jets”

 

L 24 – Introduce “EMCal” earlier.

 

L 26 – “principle” -> “principal”

 

L 27 – “both EMCal” -> “both the EMCal”

 

L 34 – “is” -> “are”

 

L 36 – Define “EM”

 

L 38 – Don’t capitalize “heavy ion”

 

L 39 – “3 \times 3 cluster” -> “3 \times 3 tower cluster”

 

L 40 – “typical” repeated

 

L 43 – I find “greater” used for a resolution to be confusing.  Perhaps “worse” instead.

 

L 44 – Define “HCal” earlier

 

L 77 – Use \sim instead of \approx

 

L 90 – Pseudorapidity range doesn’t match L 11

 

Fig 3 caption – “Technon tungsten Powder” – Either “tungsten” should be capital or “Power” lowercase.

 

L 99 – “produce” -> “production” or simply remove

 

L 101 – “University of Illinois and Chaimpaign-Urbana” – Remove the “and,” fix the spelling of “Champaign,” and switch the order to “Urbana-Champaign”

 

L 102 – “the brass mesh screens” -> “brass mesh screens”

 

L 104 – “center to center spacing” -> “center-to-center spacing”

 

L 110 – “choose” -> “chooses” or “chose”

 

Table I – “O2” -> “O_2”

 

Fig. 4 – “collective efficiency” -> “collection efficiency”

 

L 139 – “of light guide” -> “of the light guide”

 

L 141 – “readout” -> “read out”

 

L 143 – “collective efficiency” -> “collection efficiency”

 

L 149 – I think this should be “indenting-position-dependent,” assuming I understand what it means.

 

L 150 – “shower” -> “showers”

 

L 154 – “at” -> “to”

 

L 168 – “mean” -> “means”

 

L 168 – “pre-amplifyer” -> “pre-amplifier”

 

Fig. 5 – “block” -> “blocks”

 

(I stopped writing down most typos when I reached Section III.)

 

L 181 – Make “preamplifier” consistent (with hyphen or not).

 

Fig. 6a – The left-most almost-black rectangle is hard to distinguish.

 

Fig. 6 – “tiles tiles”

 

L 248 –“principle” -> “principal”

 

L 262 – Remove period after “nm”

 

L 262 –“with using” -> “using”

 

L 324 – “board . . . monitors . . ., distributes . . ., and provides”

 

L 342 – “SiPM” has already been defined

 

L 351 – Define “FTBF” in Introduction

 

L 369 – “has” -> “have”

 

L 419 – It might help to mention the HCal in this sentence to make it clear that it’s not redundant with the EMCal thermistor sentence above.

 

Fig. 13 – “is” -> “are”

 

L 490 – “to start” -> “one to start”

 

L 508 – “designated”

 

L 519 – “a \approx” -> “\sim”

 

L 521 – “\approx” -> “\sim”

 

L 522 – “\sim”

 

Fig. 14 – “negative polarity” -> “negatively charged”

 

Fig. 14 – On the x-axis it looks like “[-GeV]”

 

L 536 – “a detailed scan”

 

L 538 – “systems” -> “system”

 

L 540 – “of the of the”

 

L 544 – “readout” -> “read out”.  Again L 546.

 

L 552 – “operating”

 

L 566 – “in the EMCal”

 

L 573 – “simulate for” -> “simulate”

 

L 605 – “process” -> “processes”

 

L 607 – Should “clusterizing” by “clustering”?

 

L 646 – “that proton initiated showers” -> “with proton-initiated showers”

 

L 665 – This sentence about excluding hadronic showers in the EMCal appears to be redundant with the one at L 646.

 

L 686 – “histogramed” -> “shown”

 

L 727 – “SPACAL”

 

Fig. 20 – “stems” -> “stemming” . . . . “is” -> “are”

 

Fig. 22 – “is at” -> “is”

 

L 762 –  “HCal” written inconsistently

 

L 785 – \sim

 

L 837 – “muons” -> “muon”

 

Fig 26 – “that MIP through the HCal” – This wording needs to be fixed.

 

L 863 and 864 – “Birk’s” -> “Birks’”  Again in Fig. 28.

 

L 877 and 882 and 884, 890 – Again, “MIP” isn’t a verb.

 

L 899 – “corresponds” -> “correspond”

 

Conclusions – It might be nice if slightly broader statements could be made in the conclusions, e.g. that the test beam (re-)confirmed the viability of using calorimetry based on tungsten powder and scintillating fiber for experiments measuring particles up to tens of GeV, or something along those lines.  The main message now seems to be a recap of the resolutions, the fact that data agreed with simulations, and that the performance met the required specs for sPHENIX.  Those points should certainly be kept here, but is there anything that can be said that might be of interest to a broader audience?  If so, we might also consider adding it to the abstract.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References – The references need to be proofread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: sphenix-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [mailto:sphenix-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] On Behalf Of Ron Belmont
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:05 PM
To: sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: [Sphenix-l] First release of T-1044 2016 beam test paper

 

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
-----------------------------------------------------