Comments

From: Makoto Sakuda (sakuda@neutrino.kek.jp)
Date: Fri May 18 2001 - 10:25:05 JST

  • Next message: Takanobu Ishii: "Work today"

    Message-Id: <200105180125.KAA04501@neutrino.kek.jp>
    Subject: Comments
    Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:25:05 +0900
    From: Makoto Sakuda <sakuda@neutrino.kek.jp>
    
    Dear Bockjoo,
    
    Here are my comments to the draft of NIM paper.
    
    1) General comments
    
    I want to update the systematic errors on 1-track and
    2-track efficiency. 
    Yokoyama/Boyd demonstrated how well our simulation
    reproduces noise. 
    We can re-generate MC sets with different configrations
    easily. 
    -> We make three sets (or more) of MC: 2x(standard noise),
    0.5x(), an  0 x(), and estimate the values. 
    
    The present errors come from the visual scan.
    We need more quantitative numbers for the present physics
    analysis too. 
    
    If all of us agree, MC sets will be made by
    KEK-people(Ishida et al.). 
    
    2) Comments
    
    Figures
    1. Fig.5  We need predictions.
     (b) need merging data points above 2. Ask the company to
    make a figure. ->Ishida
     It is important to point out that the curve is constant
    after the correction. 
    2. Fig.7 need update. -> Iwashita.
    3. Fig.9 EunJu evaluated the values from beam data. 
     Cosmic-ray data and beam data should be merged. 
     The corresponding sentence (Page 11, Lines 1-8 and footnote ) should be
    changed. ->EunJu
     The hit efficiency in Table 1 may be changed too.
    4.Fig.11
    (b) Do you have any idea wht's wrong with the 19-20th
    layers? Can you explain the global feature by assuming the
    bulging? Assume that the center of the panel is shifted to
    the outside, for example.
    
    3. Sentences
    
    1) Page 1 Abstract
    one and half =>two
    2) Page 3 Line 11
    Cerenkov->Cherenkov  (or use a hut on C)
    3) Page 4,  2nd paragraph.
     The water is contained in a ....
    
    Page 4, last line-1. There are a total of 20 ...
    
    I think that we might as well start with this general
    description and go to the detailed structure.
    In any case, this paragraph may be reorganized.
    
    4) page 5, L10
    Because of the complex bundling geometry,
    -> This is not a right reason to do the EL calibration.
    We just say,
    
    In order to obtain the correspondence between the hit fiber
    and the CCD images, we illuminate th selected fiducial
    fibers at the end for from IIT and calibrate the mapping
    ....
    
    
    I will send the rest later.
    
    Regards,
    M.Sakuda
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.0 : Fri May 18 2001 - 10:25:09 JST