I read the nuclearites proposed memo/pub. The English is quite good;
there are only a few small corrections- the same as for a memo written
by a native speaker.
My overall comments:
The way the different running periods are broken down and referred
to is confusing, even to a MACRO author. For example, in 3.1.(1) you
describe the TOHM trigger in words but in 3.1.(2) you first refer to
the acronym. I think it just needs a second pass and reorganization
(for a MACRO internal memo its OK).
We need to think very carefully how the electronics will respond to
these possible particles. As Doug and Sophia already showed us, the
charging of the capacitor in the fanout can have surprising effects.
I'd like to see a careful revisit of the detector response to prove
we would have seen something in the monopole oriented analyses. It
is not sufficient to assume that the nuclearite puts out much more
light so we would have identified an event. I'm concerned there may
be either: (a) electronics effects or (b) software cuts not taken
into account.
Please tell us what the eventual goal of this work is- just MEMO/PUB
or MEMO/PUB+LNGS preprint (not the same!) or eventual paper.
In any case- it is nice to see work getting written down and documented
in something other than email for a change.
Auguri,
Ed