> From: SMTP%"Laura.Patrizii@bo.infn.it" 26-APR-1999 14:48:27.22
> To: KATSVNDS
> CC:
> Subj: RE: The nuclearite paper
>
> Erik,
>
> tu scrivi:1) p.6, 5th paragraph:
> "The Time Over Half Maximum trigger (TOHM) recognizes wide ..."
> I suggest that it is replaced by:
> "The Slow Monopole Trigger comprised of the analog Time Over Half Maximum
> (TOHM) electronics and the digital Leaky Integrator (LI) electronics
> recognizes wide ..."
>
> Messa cosi' mi sembra necessaria una ref. al TOHM+LI. Quale potrebbe essere?
> NIM93 puo' andare bene ( I didn' t check)?
Reference for the TOHM/LI should be our NIM93 paper as well as the Phys Let B
1997 where the combined limits including this system (SMT) were first presented.
> 2- I suggest the term Slow Particle Trigger (SPT) is replaced by
> the Fast Particle Trigger (FMT).
> Mi chiedo se inetndi davvero Fast Particle Trigger o volevi dire Fast Monopole
> Trigger
Yes, thank you. Please read "Fast Monopole Trigger" wherever I used
"Fast Particle Trigger."
> 3- Il mio parere e' che la footnote si potrebbe evitare, perche' non chiarisce
> molto e non aggiunge informazioni fondamentali. Penso la cosa migliore sia
> mettere delle ref. ( e se sei d'accordo ti chiederei quali) dove il lettore
> interessato puo' andare a cercare informazioni piu' complete.
The footnote is meant to cover running periods where TOHM/LI functioned
with different threshold/LI count and/or the FMT had different ToF window
etc. I agree that the result has zero dependence on these details of the
system. In any case, we have provided little insight on this kind of
details in our papers. NIM'93 describes the principle of operation for these
systems while their details are described in theses (e.g. Hong's, mine).
I think we may as well omit the footnote; it can be only for internal
"disclaimer."
> 5 " I also suggest that it is explicitly stated in the table caption that
> " overlaps in both beta sensitivity and time do exist but they are taken
> care of in the combination of limits " (e.g. TOHM A and TOHM B remain
> a puzzle for the casual reader)."
>
> Non aggiungerei questo qui, perche' e' un po' fuori contesto visto che nella
> tabella non si fa ancora riferimento alla combinazione. (In ogni caso il
> commento riguarda tutte le analisi; tutte si sovrappongono parzialmente o in
> beta e/o in tempo). Mi sembra sufficiente quanto e' scritto nella Discussion
> section " we sum the independent parts of the individual exposures ..."
In any case I was suggesting a general comment implying all analyses (not
the TOHM specifically). I understand that all analyses overlap in one way
or the other. Having the comment present in the table caption might be of
help for the reader that will get most the information of this paper out
of the tables and plots.
> Aspetto un tuo reply a questo mail
>
> ciao
>
> laura
A presto,
--Erik