From d.krofcheck@auckland.ac.nz Sat Sep  8 07:54:50 2001
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 12:51:21 +1200
From: david krofcheck <d.krofcheck@auckland.ac.nz>
Reply-To: e895-l@bnl.gov
To: e895-l@bnl.gov
Subject: Re: Longitudinal Flow draft

Hi everybody,

Good job Jenn! I have submitted some comments on style and wording to Jenn.
Here are some other comments on this nice analysis (18 orders of magnitude
on one plot in Fig 1!, i feel like an astronomer!).  I feel okay with the
analysis, do we need some more description of error analysis in "eta_max" in
Table I?

1) consider this rewording  "...leaving a hot, high-energy density region
from which a Quark_Gluon Plasma..." instead of using the term "dense vacuum"
on p.1

2) Fig. 1 caption,  needs subscripts for mt and m0; typing error "rapidity"
   Fig. 2 caption , "+2" in the 2and 6AGeV plots overlaps with "-2" from 4
and 8 AGeV plots.
   Fig. 3 caption, (<beta gamma>_L) needs a capital "L" in the subscript.


3) is the straight line in Figure 3 a chi^2 best fit, following the
reanalyzed FOPI data?  Are we saying that our data supports this steeper
slope, or has the line been drawn to "guide the eye", and it just happens to
have a slope 2.5 times larger than before?

4)  comment:  "eta" on p.3 is normally defined as the pseudorapidity.
granted that Schnedermann, Sollfrank and Heinz used "eta" as rapidity in
their paper, but should we worry that this is not "standard"?  should we
change "eta" in this paper to some less commonly used greek letter?

5) what are the "mid-rapidity slope parameter" values , used in the model
for longitudinal flow on p3?  refer to Table I T_0 valuse?


6)  explicitly call <beta_r> radial flow velocity on p. 4  ?

7) is <beta>=0.38 c reall supposed to be <beta gamma>_L=0.38c "longitudinal
flow velocity" on p. 4?


8) should not begin a sentence with a reference "[17] reported good
agreement..."; instead consider rewording "Good agreement [17] was reported
between the Au+Au..."


9) again, p.4, <beta-l> is used, does this really mean (<beta gamma>_L with
a capital "subscript "L"?

10) in the final paragaph, perhaps summarize the physical assumptions of the
model used to fit our data in Fig.2, and how the renormaization of the FOPI
result supports this model?

cheers,

David



At 08:53 AM 8/28/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello again,
>
>Hopefully, you have all had the chance to read the draft of the
>longitudinal flow paper which was sent out to you last Friday.  In
>keeping with the standard E895 publication policy on review time of
>manuscripts, I would like to request that your first round of comments
>be submitted by Friday, September 7. (two weeks) 
>
>At that time, we will review the comments, make necessary changes and
>submit the second version for review.  Thanks, and we look forward to
>hearing yourcomments.
>
>Regards,
>Jenn
>
>



===================================================================
Dr. David Krofcheck
Senior Lecturer
Department of Physics                             *                    
The University of Auckland                      *   *
Private Bag 92019                                 *
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
ph   64 9 373 7599, X-8385
FAX  64 9 308 2377
===================================================================