Comments on draft 1 of pac presentation
From GlueXWiki
Comments on Draft 1
Elton Smith
- In Table III, I would not list the April 2010 solenoid review, as it was mostly an update and planning meeting for the solenoid work. Top right page 7 SciPMs -> SiPMs.
- Thoughts on Table 4: Should we give more detail? e.g. have a category of "draft MOU", "signed MOU"? I'm not sure what the contracts with JLab mean. There are also some lines that may raise flags: UVa, so far I believe there have mainly been (informal) exchages with Eugene.
- For the updates to detectors, it might be good to put in some more quantative numbers, e.g. what percentage of material was removed from the fdc volume (beamhole, active, and frames), which pmt was selected for the tof. That will give the text more clarity and depth.
- For the physics discussion of cascades, does this infomation come from Volker? does it make sense to see if Lei has any thoughts on this? (Several superscript "0" need to be added)
David Lawrence
I briefly looked over the Hall-D document for the upcoming PAC review and had 2 minor comments:
- In section IV on page 6 it says the Kalman Filter could improve the tracking resolution. In reality it shouldn't give any improvement. It will, however, give a more accurate estimate of the covariance of the fit parameters which will be critical for the kinematic fitter as well as the PWA.
Zisis Paandreou
The document reads quite well. The BCAL capture is fine; you got the most important aspects of that. A couple of minor typos:
- p. 2, right column, 3rd paragraph, last line: "Finding many of the mapping of these..." -> "Mapping out these.."
- p.8, right column, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line: "particular" is misspelled
