sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

[David Morrison <morrison AT bnl.gov>]

Hi Megan,

Nicely done!  I have some comments you might consider.

Cheers,
Dave

abstract:

"calls for ... called sPHENIX" sounds a bit repetitive to my ear. How
about "argues for ... called sPHENIX"?

"In this talk we will present" – since the talk already occurred and
these are the written proceedings, how about just "We will present"?

2-5.  We do have lots of precision measurements at RHIC and the LHC.  I
would think something along the lines of, "As argued in the 2015 NSAC
LRP, understanding the origins of the novel QGP properties revealed in
the precise heavy-ion measurements now available requires new jet and
heavy flavor capabilities at RHIC to provide measurements complementary
to those available at the LHC.  This will map out the temperature
evolution of a number of scale-sensitive observables, providing key
insights into the underlying dynamics of the QGP."  Mainly, I think you
don't want to imply that there are no precision measurements right now,
it's that sPHENIX will provide new observables.

13: I don't think you need the comma after "quarkonia"

21: We can use the DCA not only for tagging heavy flavor jets, but for
tagging heavy flavor more generally.  If I recall correctly, Sasha
Lebedev and Xin Dong have each looked at D->Kpi with no PID but using a
DCA cut.


23: s/formally/formerly/ or s/formally/previously/

25: the full field test is now planned for September

28: space before "cm"

31: "um" came out looking weird.  Try this "$\mu$m" and not "$\mu m$".
"GeV" shouldn't be in math mode.  Try "$p_T = 1$--2~GeV/$c$".

43: the range 1-32 should use an em dash in LaTeX "--".

50: Instead of "sufficient to achieve the goals for sPHENIX" you might
say, "This meets the physics-driven specifications for the experiment."
It's dry, but it shows we had specs beforehand.

56: Normally, small numbers should be written out.  So, I'd write "each
layer included four tiles placed side by side horizontally and tiles
were bundled into groups of five before".

57: s/wave length/wavelength/

57: s/is the read/is then read/

71: I wouldn't put "CD-0" in quotes (though I did it here).  It looks
like we're mocking it.  The appositive phrase that follows does a fine
job of explaining what it is.

73: I wouldn't say "filling the gap".  Sounds like the motivation is to
have something to keep people busy.  Why not stitch those sentences
together into something like, "Construction is expected to start in
2018, and finish in 2021, with sPHENIX ready to start taking data for
its anticipated multi-year physics program beginning in 2022.  The NSAC
LRP also recommends the construction of an Electron-Ion Collider, and
BNL is planning how to build upon RHIC to realize such a facility.
In concert with that effort, the cold QCD topical group within the
collaboration is studying how sPHENIX could serve as the foundation for
a capable EIC detector to measure nuclear parton distribution functions,
the partonic structure of the proton, low-x saturation effects,
diffraction, hadronization and other key EIC observables."

84: s/consistant/consistent/

bibliography: something is weird with the URL for the LRP.  It has
subscripted "L" and "O".  Try "\url{http: ....}".


On 4/8/17 10:41 PM, Megan Connors wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> The current draft of the proceedings of my QM talk on sPHENIX is
> available here:
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/i3cwrdjga7y2bh0/Connors_sPHENIX_QM2017Proceedings_v1.pdf?dl=0
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/i3cwrdjga7y2bh0/Connors_sPHENIX_QM2017Proceedings_v1.pdf?dl=0>
> 
> Comments welcome. Deadline is next weekend, April 15th.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Megan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sPHENIX-l mailing list
> sPHENIX-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-l
> 

-- 
David Morrison  Brookhaven National Laboratory  phone: 631-344-5840
                Physics Department, Bldg 510 C    fax: 631-344-3253
                          Upton, NY 11973-5000  email: dave AT bnl.gov