Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sphenix-l - Re: [Sphenix-l] Final approval request for the T-1044 2016 beam test paper

sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Xiaochun He <xhe AT gsu.edu>
  • To: "'sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov'" <sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Sphenix-l] Final approval request for the T-1044 2016 beam test paper
  • Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:16:13 +0000

Dear Jin, Abhisek, Megan, Virginia, Ron and all,


Thanks for the great effort to publish the FIRST sPHENIX paper.


I have following comments to the draft posted on the sPHENIX wiki, most of which are minor comments. I wish I could send this out at an earlier time. Late is better than never.


L7:   "for measurements" -> "for the measurements"


L12:  "tracking .." -> "a tracking system and a three-segment calorimeter system"


L13:  "full" -> "a full"


L31:  "both .." -> "both the EMCal and the inner HCal";

         and the long dash look odd. Add a space before and after the long dash?


L38:  "means a small" -> "means that a small"


L41:  "for EM shower" -> "of EM shower"


L45:  "good upsilon"  -> "upsilon"


L48:  "3-column x 3-row":  without the description of the EMCal design, this is ill-defined.


L50: "deliver the sPHENIX physics" -> "fulfill the sPHENIX physics requirements" 


L57:  "At the ... "  This claim needs to be justified.  Maybe add a reference if we know of?  How much do we know about the underlying event which could distort the true jet measurements.


L67:  "test beam set up" -> "beam test setup"


L76:  "results" -> "the results"


Fig 1 caption:  "beam test setup"


Fig 2: This is simply a sketch of the SPACAL block. I think that it is helpful to readers to see a cross-section view of the block showing the embedded fibers.


L111:  "To create" -> "To produce"


TABLE I:  The caption should be put before the table.

                  "Particle size" -> "particle size"

                  "95.4 persent W" -> "95.4% W"


TABLE II  The caption should be put before the table.  To be consistent, capitalize the first letter of each of the leading word in the description.

                  "HCal" -> "the HCal"


L201:  "within ..." -> "within a 2.5 cm distance from a WLS fiber"


L204:  "as well as..." -> "as well as the experience with the test tiles"


L223:  "Tile construction" -> "Tile Construction"


L245:  "Tile testing" -> "Tile Testing"


L269:   "The 16 GeV .."  -> "This study was done with ..."  

            Given the fact that the secondary beam size is large, how accurate is this scan?


TABLE III  The caption should be put before the table.

           Remove the "unit" column to make space for the 3rd column and add units (if necessary) to the end of each value in the table.


           I am not sure I understand the contents in the last two rows of this table.  I think that it will be clearer if a good description of the sampling fraction determination is described somewhere in the paper. 


Fig 10 Caption:  "SiPM read out" -> "SiPM readout"


L353:  "multiple SiPMs" -> "SiPMs"


L361:  remove "for 24 time slices"  for two reasons:  i) It does not add much value and is confusing for typical readers; ii) This point is made on L507.


L362:  remove "for analysis".  This is obvious.


L373:  "sPHENIX detector" -> "sPHENIX experiment"


L374: "to magnetic" -> "to the magnetic"


L378:  "both for the ele...." -> "both for the EMCal and the HCal"


L388:  "as the optical sensor" -> as the preferred SiPMs"


L386:  "HCal portion of the detector" -> "the HCal"


Fig 11 Caption:  "Outer HCal" -> "the outer HCal"


L424:  "Slow Control" -> "slow control"

L429:


L425:  ";"  ->  ","


L435:  "HCal" -> "the HCal"


Fig 12 Caption:  "Hcal" -> "the HCal"


Fig 13:  Remove (a) and (b).  (panel (a)) -> (left)   (panel (b)) -> (right)


Fig 15:  "T-1044 Testbeam" -> "Team test setup"


L605:  "for simulation .." -> "for simulation studies of the EMCal and the HCal" 


L617:  "in both EMCal..." -> "in both the EMCal and the HCal"


L619:  "three layers" -> "three segments (sections maybe?) of the calorimeter system" 


L621: "After ..."  this sentence does not read well.


L626 and 627:  I personally prefer not to add an apostrophe for "Birks"


L653:  "both simulated ..." -> "both the simulated and the beam test data"


L654 to 657:  "The analysis ... " I would remove the whole sentence.  This is an obvious thing to do in any experiment.


L864:  It would be helpful to add description of the sampling fraction calculation. I would add this description in the simulation section. 


Fig 26 Caption: "for inner ..." -> "for the inner and the outer HCal"

                  "cosmic MIP event" -> cosmic ray muon event"

                  Figure labels could use a larger font size.


Fig 27 Caption:  "inner ..." -> "the inner and the outer"


Fig 28 Caption:  "HCal Standalone" -> "HCal standalone"


L912: "reconstructed" -> "the reconstructed"


L924:  Could use a better title.  How about "Hadron Measurements with the EMCal and the HCal"


L929:  "HCal" -> "the Hcal"


======



The end


cheers,

Xiaochun

--


Xiaochun He
Distinguished University Professor
 and Physics Graduate Director
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303



From: sPHENIX-l <sphenix-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Huang, Jin <jhuang AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:33 AM
To: 'sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov'
Subject: [Sphenix-l] Final approval request for the T-1044 2016 beam test paper
 

Dear collaborators,

We are writing to send the submission-candidate of the first sPHENIX calorimetry prototype paper, and to look for the collaboration’s approval:  https://wiki.bnl.gov/sPHENIX/index.php/File:T-1044_publication_SubmissionCandidate1.pdf   (username: sphenix  password: babar1008)

First of all, we would like to thank you for all the useful comments and suggestions to the last two collaboration releases (and before that, comments from the calorimeter groups). These comments have been tracked and responded in this wiki page: https://wiki.bnl.gov/sPHENIX/index.php/T-1044_publication_collaboration_comments

As we have completed editing the paper, Dave and Gunther have requested us to send this submission-candidate version to the collaboration, and to report back to the next sPHENIX general meeting on Mar 31st in order to request final approval.

In this final-approval stage, we will still welcome comments on either typos in the paper, or on a major error. Since we have completed two iterations of collaboration releases, we have been advised to avoid further incremental improvement in the content, but to finalize for submission. Once approved, the final paper will be submitted to IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, and to arXiv.

Best regards,

The T-1044 paper committee
(Abhisek, Jin, Megan, Virginia, and Ron, with special thanks to outgoing committee member Vera)

 

 

______________________________

 

Jin HUANG

 

Associate Physicist

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Physics Department, Bldg 510 C

Upton, NY 11973-5000

 

Office: 631-344-5898

Cell:   757-604-9946

______________________________

 




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page