Subject: Final paper on Magnetic Monopoles
From: Maurizio Spurio (Maurizio.Spurio@bo.infn.it)
Date: Fri Apr 05 2002 - 08:42:58 EST
To the Rare Particle Working group;
I received two weeks ago (as member of MACRO EB) the draft of the magnetic
monopole paper.
As a general comment, it is very good (apart sec. 2.1.1).
Instead to ask to the authors the changes, I do it myself (with the help of
Michela Cozzi) and a new version is now ready. When I added a new paragraph
and/or a new sentence, this is written in BOLD in the new version. When I
removed some word or a sentence, there is a **.
I do not explain each detail (but I'm ready to answer to all
observation/questions you address to me).
The main points are:
1. The Sophia analysis (sec. 2.1.1). In the old version, it was badly
described, and I was in troubles (as a non-expert). I talked to Sophia, and
I asked her thesis (al least, the important chapter), and then I was
convinced of the goodness of the analysis. Then, I completely rewrite (using
the thesis) most of the section, in particular the definition of the trigger
sensitivity and analysis efficiency, and the description of how the
candidates were rejected. It contains now much more details, but it is
necessary because this particular analysis was never described before (apart
in the Nato-Oujda workshop).
2. There are two tables now, with detailed value of the flux limits. In my
opinion, those tables are necessary because the "funny" shape of our global
limit, presented in Fig. 8 and 9. We must absolutely be sure that future
papers (in particular, the PD Book) quote in a correct way our MM limit. The
first table helps also to understand how the global limit was calculated
(sec. 3. By the way, this section is hard to read, but I was not able to
simplify it).
3. I know about the troubles produced by the Erik LED magnetic monopole. I
tried to "put in positive" this situation (which is largely described in the
Sophia thesis, which brightly demonstrate that it is a TRUE LED event). In
my opinion, the idea of a fake MM was a great idea, which strongly reinforce
both the WFD and PHRASE analyses. So, I included a sentence about the
existence of a "spokesman" MM in both the WFD and PHRASE sections.
4. I included a short introduction in sec. 2.2 (Search with Streamer tubes)
and 2.1.1 (search with horizontal streamer tubes), which were mainly
extracted from the old APP paper. I tried also to define the "beta-cut",
which was missing. In this section, the definition of the efficiency of the
trigger circuits is not completely clear.
5. In the track-etch section, I asked to remove the old figures, and to
include a new one, which is more important in my opinion.
6. I Include a short description of the "EPB", which is present in the last
figure, but never defined.
I ask to all the authors of the different sections to check the new
version, and send comments if they do not agree with my changes. In parallel
Erick (which is both an author and the other EB member) can produce
additional changes/comments. As a general rule, PLEASE SEND COMMENTS TO:
spurio@bo.infn.it, patrizii@bo.infn.it, cozzi@bo.infn.it
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BEFORE TWO WEEKS (i.e. FRIDAY 19 APRIL 2002).
If necessary, I can produce a WEB page with comments/mail etc.
The new version of the paper is in:
http://www.bo.infn.it/~spurio/macro/macrofinale_2.ps
The WEB page of the final MACRO papers is:
http://www.bo.infn.it/~spurio/macro/works.htm
maurizio
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Fri Apr 05 2002 - 08:43:42 EST