sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

["Phipps, Michael William" <mphipps2 AT illinois.edu>]

Hi all,

Looks great ... just a few final comments:

Title: No period at the end
Fig. 2: Is this the best schematic we have? A CADD drawing would look better 
here and be clearer
Fig. 3 caption: capitalize Tungsten in Technon Tungsten Powder, change the ~ 
to a - and capitalize Mesh.  ie) the name should be "Technon Tungsten Powder 
-100 Mesh"
90-101: The EMCal modules are produced at two production sites: Tungsten 
Heavy Powder Inc. in San Diego  and the University of Illinois at 
Urbana-Champaign (UIUC).
110: *chose. Or simply "used"
Table I: could include "Single clad" with the fiber type
Fig. 4: "Relative light collection ..." and can omit "See text for details."
129: "measured in ADC ..."
139: "uniformity of the light guide ..."
143: "measured relative collection ..."
147: "Throughout the input cross section of the light guide, ~30% relative 
variation is observed, which leads to ~20% position dependent ... for 
electromagnetic-showers ..."
153: "The assemble of both THP and UIUC modules was completed at BNL ... 
being shipped to Fermilab ..."
160: remove PCB acronym
168: "preamplifier"
content comment: should include the preamp heat output here (2.5 W/board) as 
justification for including the fan
251: The "tile mapper" setup should be clarified. If there's a good picture 
of the setup that could go here. Otherwise the relative orientation of the 
tiles/procedure just needs clarified.
261: First paragraph of section describes the LED calibration. The second 
describes a test beam calibration, and then the third returns to results of 
the LED calibration. This seem choppy, and it's not easy to follow the 
calibration process.
319: "Since the"
Fig 12: This is the diagram from the old "Prototype B" preamp. Should use 
circuit diagram for preamp used in beamtest.
508: "designated"
566: "in the EMCal."
Fig. 19: Why is the gain in the middle of the last row so much higher than 
other towers? As it is, it's a little misleading b/c you look at something 
like this and think maybe you're looking at a shower rather than a MIP. In 
lieu of a systematic explanation for the gain difference, the calibration 
looks suspicious.  
754: this ... performed in a negatively-charged hadron beams of 4, 8, and 12 
GeV/c. All simulation tunes ... showers in the EMCal ..."
943: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Cheers,

Mike
________________________________________
From: sphenix-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [sphenix-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] on 
behalf of Ron Belmont [ron.belmont AT colorado.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:05 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.bnl.gov_sPHENIX_images_7_75_Beam-2Dtest-2Dresults-5Ffirst-2Dcollab-2Drelease.pdf&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=OX11mXhfZ-mCGJkol-K5GfuB2GzmXLq0BNqZYEejiNM&m=Ujlih_rVsIkIUSCAf-juutg91WExBAcXCP2T1vLfCYA&s=MBoESinKdXrClStHQUwvU2DytUspqkunXoxyRO_wRv0&e=>
 .  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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.bnl.gov_sPHENIX_index.php_T-2D1044-5Fpublication-5Fcomments&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=OX11mXhfZ-mCGJkol-K5GfuB2GzmXLq0BNqZYEejiNM&m=Ujlih_rVsIkIUSCAf-juutg91WExBAcXCP2T1vLfCYA&s=n4imOu8mmHBovWjh4IOnIqTEG1YidmYHyoQ4EzIUbPU&e=>
[https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif]
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_forms_d_e_1FAIpQLSdyrXUoNoiS65D6VqVPNPyGZJQYk-5F5IiIYqcUW9G4ak5c19gw_viewform-3Fc-3D0-26w-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=OX11mXhfZ-mCGJkol-K5GfuB2GzmXLq0BNqZYEejiNM&m=Ujlih_rVsIkIUSCAf-juutg91WExBAcXCP2T1vLfCYA&s=DRFqD_VdjAkMkrghJVqsLrMBIXHEr3woyf5Q_sDso6o&e=>
 .  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<mailto:ron.belmont AT colorado.edu>
-----------------------------------------------------