Project

General

Profile

System Performance Paper Draft 5 » History » Version 36

Franchini, Paolo, 29 April 2021 14:55

1 1 Rogers, Chris
h1. System Performance Paper Draft 5
2 2 Rogers, Chris
3 3 Rogers, Chris
This version is available for initial collaboration review. Deadline for reviews will be end of play Wednesday 14th April. Target journal is J. Inst. (Muons edition)
4 4 Franchini, Paolo
5 5 Franchini, Paolo
h2. Comments received (in progress):
6 1 Rogers, Chris
7 8 Franchini, Paolo
h3. Mark Tucker ✓
8 5 Franchini, Paolo
9
I have not checked actual values, and I am commenting on the presentation in the paper.
10
11
I have some comments on section 7 of this paper. Grammatically:
12
13
-1)Line 350: characterisation … was (not were)- OK
14
15
-2)Line 411, lose not loose- OK
16
17
-1)Line 423: of the of the repeated- OK
18
19
And there is confusion caused by using bar. Typically, this is used to state a pressure above atmospheric pressure, i.e. 1.5 bar means a true pressure of 2.5 x atmospheric pressure; “bar” meaning “except atmospheric pressure” (c.f. bar none), unless specifiying “bar abs” which could be considered essentially self-contradictory. It is better to state all pressures in mbar to avoid confusion (except relief valve settings):
20
21
-1)Line 366: 1150 mbar- OK
22
23
-2)Line 367: 1085 mbar- Ok
24
25
-3)Line 380: 1085 mbar- OK
26
27
-4)Line 384: 1505 mbar- OK
28
29
-5)Line 391: 1085 mbar- OK
30
31
-6)Line 402: The vessel was designed to withstand at least 2500mbar internally, the internal pressure was limited by the 1.5 bar (small b) relief valve to atmosphere, whilst the vessel was surrounded by vacuum.-
32
OK
33
34
-Lines 367-371: This is confusing as the period of data-taking is glossed over, and a description of venting (cryocooler off, heater on) is given priority as though this happened almost straight away after filling. You could change the text to: “The vessel then remained in this steady state during the period of data-taking, after which the vessel was vented. For the venting process, …”-
35
OK
36
37
---
38
39 9 Franchini, Paolo
h3. Rachel Gamet ✓
40 5 Franchini, Paolo
41 6 Franchini, Paolo
-In the introduction we say MICE ran from 2008 to 2018 and, on P4 we say Fig 3 shows data taken in 2018. If my memory serves me correctly the final data-taking for MICE was in December 2017.-
42
Correct. Was a typo probably coming from the fact was data reconstructed in 2018.
43 1 Rogers, Chris
44 6 Franchini, Paolo
-Fig 10 says it shows data at 400MeV/c, while in the text it says it is at 300MeV/c.-
45
Is 300 MeV/c
46 1 Rogers, Chris
47 6 Franchini, Paolo
-On P10 we use the acronym SAPMT which I don't think has been defined, although earlier we do talk about single-anode PMT, which is what I assume it stands for.-
48
Acronym added when defined
49 5 Franchini, Paolo
50 6 Franchini, Paolo
-P18, line 373 would read better if changed to "The magnetic-field dependent temperature error, DeltaT/T, at 2.5T is 0.04%,....".
51
And line 376 should say "used" rather than "using".-
52
OK
53 5 Franchini, Paolo
54
---
55
56
h3. Maurizio Bonesini
57
58 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*I think the description of the Liquid Hydrogen Absorber
59 5 Franchini, Paolo
(section 7) is not pertinent. It clashes heavily with the abstract, where
60
we say that the paper `` documents the performance of the detectors used
61
in MICE to measure the muon-beam parameters''. I would skip it or at least
62 1 Rogers, Chris
put in a separate appendix, explaining why it is described. A referee may
63
argue why we do not discuss other pieces of the cooling channel, such as
64 31 Franchini, Paolo
the diffuser, ... at this point.*-
65 32 Franchini, Paolo
Included the LH2 in the abstract. With respect to the solid LiH, the LH2 is an instrumented apparatus which deserves this discussion, in particular as a source of reference for the other analysis on LH2 data.
66 1 Rogers, Chris
67 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*In addition a relevant missing  point is how the various efficiency on
68 11 Franchini, Paolo
electron ID, muon MIS ID ... translates into a systematic error for the
69 31 Franchini, Paolo
emittance measurement. At least as a guess.*-
70 33 Franchini, Paolo
The PID is analysis and beam (muoninc/pionic) dependent. For example comparing JN's scattering analysis and any emittance one.
71 7 Franchini, Paolo
72 1 Rogers, Chris
Minor comments:
73 7 Franchini, Paolo
74
-line 35: I would add in figure 1 the acronyms TKU,TKD,SSU,SSD, FC ...
75 1 Rogers, Chris
         quoted in the text, eg
76 10 Franchini, Paolo
         Spectrometer Solenoid >   Spectrometer solenoid  ....
77 1 Rogers, Chris
                                           (SSU)
78 7 Franchini, Paolo
         to let the reader understand where they are.-
79
OK
80
         
81
         
82 10 Franchini, Paolo
-line 58:  The bars of TOF0 ...> The bars of TOF0(TO1-TOF2) were made of
83 7 Franchini, Paolo
          BC-404 (BC420) scintillators.-
84 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
85
    
86
-line 62: The TOF detector > one TOF detector-
87 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
88
89 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*line 45-110 I would be helpful to add a picture showing the stability of the
90 1 Rogers, Chris
          TOF system over data-taking. I remind a similar plot quoted in
91 36 Franchini, Paolo
          reference JINST 7(2012) P05009 (figure 18)*-
92
I think we have decided time ago to do not include this plot.
93 31 Franchini, Paolo
The plot you quote was just one month of data taking. Over years of runs the calibration procedure has been constantly improved.
94 7 Franchini, Paolo
          
95
-line 115: I would quote the type of PMT used-
96
They were mentioned in former draft and have been moved out, since as for the other detectors are present in cited papers where there are more details in terms of hardware.
97
98
-line 126-133: I would report only for PID performances results obtained in
99 5 Franchini, Paolo
         the MICE muon beam (as done for TOF: fig 4, for KL fig 8,9,
100
         for EMR fig 12 and trackers fig 14) otherwise I would drop this
101 7 Franchini, Paolo
         paragraph.-
102
Muon beam above 200 MeV/c were used, up to the calibration beams at 400 MeV/c.
103
         
104
-line 150: figure 8 and 9 show the same results twice, in different
105 5 Franchini, Paolo
          formats. To avoid unnecessary duplication, I will show only figure
106 7 Franchini, Paolo
          9, skipping figure 8.-
107 1 Rogers, Chris
OK          
108
109
-line 146: I would quote the PMT type used-
110 7 Franchini, Paolo
As before.
111
112
-line 180: I would specify the type of SAPMT and MAPMT used in EMR-
113 1 Rogers, Chris
As before.
114 29 Franchini, Paolo
115 34 Franchini, Paolo
-Figure 11: -wording on the left panel is barely visible.-
116
OK
117
118
-*In addition I would
119 1 Rogers, Chris
           try to use a figure showing how the readout is implemented
120 31 Franchini, Paolo
           (similar to what is done in figure 7)*-
121 34 Franchini, Paolo
Removed the read out from Fig.7. Full read out too complex to be included in a schematic (while present in referenced documents).
122 1 Rogers, Chris
           
123
-line 209: the acronym SAMPT is never defined-
124
OK
125
126 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*lines 230- 310: as a general remark the description of the tracker is much
127 5 Franchini, Paolo
          longer as respect to the other detectors. I would
128 1 Rogers, Chris
          trim it, avoiding details on spacepoint efficiency, noise, ...
129 31 Franchini, Paolo
          stressing only track efficiency and track fit performance*-
130 35 Franchini, Paolo
The Tracker reconstruction itself is more complex than the other detectors. In terms of line numbers is just 9 lines longer (14%) than the TOF section and in general well balanced between the sections.
131 31 Franchini, Paolo
          
132 1 Rogers, Chris
-*Figure 13: I would either replace the image with a layout of one tracker
133 7 Franchini, Paolo
          showing the different elements (as done in figure 7 for KL) or
134 31 Franchini, Paolo
          add this layout to the shown image (side by side)*-
135 34 Franchini, Paolo
Removed the read out from Fig.7. Full read out too complex to be included in a schematic (while present in referenced documents, e.g. R.Asfandiyarov et al.,).
136 30 Franchini, Paolo
137 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*Section 7: see comments before.*-
138
As before.
139 7 Franchini, Paolo
140 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*Conclusions: Table 4 sounds odd to me. How track efficiency may be
141 1 Rogers, Chris
          considered PID ? Maybe its contents may be re-phrased in some
142
          sentences. I think here some considerations on the influence of
143
          PID efficiency, muon MIS ID ... on the systematic error on
144 31 Franchini, Paolo
          evaluation of emittances must be put.*-
145
Removed the Track finding efficiency (already included in the Tracking section) from the table.
146 22 Franchini, Paolo
147 31 Franchini, Paolo
-I think the paper is useful for other MICE papers, but it needs some
148
further refinements-
149 7 Franchini, Paolo
150 31 Franchini, Paolo
151 1 Rogers, Chris
---
152
153
h3. Chris Booth
154 7 Franchini, Paolo
155
-Line 22 ";" should be a comma.-
156 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
157 7 Franchini, Paolo
158
-27 Specify "a kinetic energy of 800 MeV"?  (We normally quote total energies.)-
159 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
160 7 Franchini, Paolo
161
-33 I don't think there should be a hyphen in lithium hydride.-
162 1 Rogers, Chris
I agree, removed. PubChem doesn't show it either as a synonym.
163 7 Franchini, Paolo
164
-47 delete "and" after "while".-
165 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
166 7 Franchini, Paolo
167
-93 "Two slab signals".-
168 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
169 7 Franchini, Paolo
170
-107 Clumsy sentence.  "of the measured ToF distribution".  Or just delete first "of"?-
171 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
172 7 Franchini, Paolo
173
-153-4 Repetition of statement about zero field.-
174
OK
175
176 5 Franchini, Paolo
-157 Comma after "300 MeV/c".-
177 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
178
179 1 Rogers, Chris
-168 Delete "for" after "allowed".-
180
OK
181
182 7 Franchini, Paolo
-169 "Each plane", rather than "one plane".-
183 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
184 7 Franchini, Paolo
185
-171 "could" rather than "would.-
186 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
187 29 Franchini, Paolo
188 1 Rogers, Chris
-*Fig 11 Orientation is unclear.  Would it be useful to add axes?  Also red text is not very clear on dark grey.*-
189
OK. Added beam direction
190 29 Franchini, Paolo
191 5 Franchini, Paolo
-207 Reorder sentence.  Put "The mode ..." first?  (It could be read that the later parts of the sentence refer to the 3.26% of cases.)-
192 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
193
194 1 Rogers, Chris
-<Line numbers screwed up!> In "based on these distinct characteristics", it is not clear what "these" refers to.-
195 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
196
197 1 Rogers, Chris
-Would it be useful to show specimen distribution of rho_p and chi-squared for both mu and e?-
198 7 Franchini, Paolo
They were present in former drafts, but moved out in more recent versions.
199
200 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*243 Is the tracker in figure 13 really "on the bed of the coordinate measuring machine"?*-
201
Yes it is. Ken confirms
202 5 Franchini, Paolo
203 7 Franchini, Paolo
-245 Comma should be semicolon, or new sentence.-
204
OK
205 5 Franchini, Paolo
206 7 Franchini, Paolo
-Figures 15 & 16: Captions are not very informative!-
207
OK
208 5 Franchini, Paolo
209 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*Figures 15 & 16: Scales on ordinates don't look optimal.*-
210
Reducing the Y scale would magnify the marginal non-linear trends of the histogram.
211 7 Franchini, Paolo
212
-Figure 17 Consistence of algorithm or consistency of constants/results?-
213
OK, "results"
214 25 Franchini, Paolo
215
-*361 and following:  I couldn't understand the relationship of the 0.1 K resolution (mentioned also on line 383) to the accuracy and stability of 9 and 12 mK (etc).*-
216 5 Franchini, Paolo
The correction factors have to rely on the the 0.1K resolution of the readout.
217 7 Franchini, Paolo
218
-376 Delete "that" after "devised".-
219 1 Rogers, Chris
"...was devised that used..."
220 5 Franchini, Paolo
221 7 Franchini, Paolo
-403 Comma should be semicolon, or new sentence.-
222
OK
223 15 Franchini, Paolo
224
-References: Capitalisation does not seem very consistent between different references!-
225 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
226 1 Rogers, Chris
227
-463 [8] "mK" (capital K).-
228 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
229 5 Franchini, Paolo
230 7 Franchini, Paolo
-501 [25] Should "Jim" be here?!-
231
OK
232 15 Franchini, Paolo
233
-517 [32] Journal abbreviation and capitalisation inconsistent with others. (Also "Feb" not "FEB"?)-
234 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
235 7 Franchini, Paolo
236
-524 [36] "MICE" (capitals).-
237 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
238 7 Franchini, Paolo
239
240 1 Rogers, Chris
241
---
242
243
h3. Henry Nebrensky
244 27 Franchini, Paolo
245 1 Rogers, Chris
*1) I agree that at first sight this paper looks a bit strange with the
246
LH2 stuffed in with the detectors; but I don't know if a separate
247
absorber-only paper would be accepted and this all needs publishing at
248
some point.
249
My thought was instead to present this paper as demonstrating the
250
basis of our claim that we correctly measure single particles, such
251
that it can be cited by the beam physics papers. That is, we would
252
like to write something along the lines of "MICE measured the passage
253 28 Franchini, Paolo
of single muons through the apparatus[1] which we here aggregate into
254
a series of synthetic beams... "*
255
*Making that claim requires that we
256
- know we have a muon (does the PID ID?)
257
- know its trajectory entering/leaving some stuff (does the Tracker Track?)
258 1 Rogers, Chris
- know what the stuff is (else the exercise is pointless!)
259
I think this paper could (in combination with previous ones) justify
260
that claim without significant rework of the science payload, but it
261
will need rewriting the Intro/Summary sections.
262
I don't know how clear that is and it's very late here; basically it's
263
about justifying "MICE measured the passage of single muons..." vs
264 27 Franchini, Paolo
merely "MICE recorded some sets of space-point hits..."*
265 1 Rogers, Chris
266 18 Franchini, Paolo
-2) I understand the temptation to list the PMTs and electronics used
267 1 Rogers, Chris
by the various detectors, but the result is hardly fun to read. Is
268
there a way to instead present this in a single table covering all
269 18 Franchini, Paolo
detectors?-
270
Technical information for all the detectors is present in other papers.
271
A comprehensive list of details would mean scintillators, PMTs, cables, DAQ electronics, et cetera.
272 5 Franchini, Paolo
273 1 Rogers, Chris
===
274
275
Title
276 17 Franchini, Paolo
*"Performance of the MICE diagnostic system" A "diagnostic system" is
277 1 Rogers, Chris
something that tells you why MICE doesn't work. "detector and absorber
278 17 Franchini, Paolo
systems"? (but see above)*
279 31 Franchini, Paolo
This is not necessary true. A diagnose would not just be used to spot a 
280 7 Franchini, Paolo
281 5 Franchini, Paolo
-Abstract
282
line 12: mention LH2: "This paper documents the performance of the
283 7 Franchini, Paolo
detectors used in MICE to measure the muon-beam parameters, and the
284
physical properties at run-time of the liquid-hydrogen absorber."-
285 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
286
287 7 Franchini, Paolo
1 Intro
288
-line 18: The timeS taken... (to match "... are long")-
289
OK
290
291 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 21: "Ionization cooling..." the semicolon in that sentence is
292
wrong; use a pair of commas (one after [12, 13] and one instead of the
293 7 Franchini, Paolo
semicolon) instead. Either remove those around "where it loses energy"
294
or replace them with a pair of dashes.-
295
OK
296
297 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 26: "MICE operated on the ISIS neutron and muon source..." to
298
"MICE operated at the ISIS neutron and muon source..." and "ISIS
299 1 Rogers, Chris
accelerates protons..." to "The ISIS synchrotron accelerates
300 7 Franchini, Paolo
protons..." to make it clear we're not connected with the TS1 muon
301
beamlines-
302
OK
303
304
-line 29: delete "conventional"? (DS is superconducting)-
305
OK. 
306
307
-line 31: "of two dipole magnets" to "of the two dipole magnets D1 and D2"-
308 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
309 7 Franchini, Paolo
310
-line 33: remove hyphens from "liquid-hydrogen", "lithium-hydride" and
311 21 Franchini, Paolo
"focus-coil" (to match fig. 1).-
312 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
313
314
-line 39: "and to quantify the properties..." to "and quantifies the
315
physical properties..."-
316
OK
317
318 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 43: "The instrumentation of the liquid-hydrogen absorber is
319 7 Franchini, Paolo
discussed in section 7." to "The properties of the the liquid hydrogen
320
absorber are described in section7."-
321 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
322
323 21 Franchini, Paolo
-fig.1 caption: remove hyphen from "liquid-hydrogen"-
324 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
325 1 Rogers, Chris
326 7 Franchini, Paolo
2 TOFs
327
-line 47: "while and" to "while"-
328
OK
329 14 Franchini, Paolo
330
-line 48-50 "The range of particle momentum..." This sentence is a
331
repeat of one in the introduction - is there a way to smarten this up?-
332 7 Franchini, Paolo
Removed.
333
334
-fig. 2: is there a way to indicate the beam direction?-
335
OK. Added an arrow
336 23 Franchini, Paolo
337
-line 100: can we change 'T' to 't' to avoid confusion with temperature in s7?-
338 1 Rogers, Chris
OK. Also in fig.3
339 7 Franchini, Paolo
340
-line 103: we did run various Cooling Channel and Beamline components
341
in 2018, but never took any data.-
342
OK
343 1 Rogers, Chris
344 19 Franchini, Paolo
3 Cherenkov
345
-fig. 5: is it possible to indicate the beam direction on this?-
346 12 Franchini, Paolo
OK
347
348
-line 131: move the definition of gamma to here-
349 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
350
351 13 Franchini, Paolo
4 KL
352
-fig. 7: is it possible to add an arrow indicating the beam direction?-
353 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
354 7 Franchini, Paolo
355
-line 160: "was been" to "has been"-
356
OK
357
358
-line 162: is "400 MeV/c" a typo? Other text and figure caption only
359
mention 300MeV/c-
360
OK. It is.
361 1 Rogers, Chris
362 7 Franchini, Paolo
5 EMR
363
-line 168: "apparatus" to "Cooling Channel" Possibly delete sentence as
364
it's repeated near-verbatim at line 184.-
365
OK deleted.
366 26 Franchini, Paolo
367 1 Rogers, Chris
-fig. 11: is it possible to indicate the beam direction, e.g. an arrow
368
labelled "beam" running down the central gutter?  The usual
369 26 Franchini, Paolo
expectation is left to right, but the figures here are all either
370
subtly or very different!-
371 1 Rogers, Chris
OK.
372
373 21 Franchini, Paolo
7 Liquid-Hydrogen Absorber
374
-line 349: remove hyphen from "liquid-hydrogen" throughout-
375 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
376
377
-line 357: "the two domes of the thin aluminium end windows..." to "the
378
two domes of the end windows..."-
379
OK
380
381
-fig. 18 caption: "absorber/focus-coil (AFC) module" to "focus coil
382
module (FC)" for consistency with Intro-
383
OK
384
385 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 361: "The temperature of the vessel was recorded by eight
386
LakeShore Cernox 1050 SD sensors with a resolution of 0.1 K." to "The
387 1 Rogers, Chris
temperature of the vessel was recorded by eight LakeShore Cernox 1050
388
SD sensors at a resolution of 0.1 K." or even  "The temperature of the
389
vessel was measured by eight LakeShore Cernox 1050 SD sensors recorded
390 7 Franchini, Paolo
at a resolution of 0.1 K" - the resolution refers to the _recording of
391
the data values_, not the sensors.-
392
OK
393
394
-line 367: remove hyphen from "steady-state"-
395
OK
396
397 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 368: "...until the venting process began." to "... until the
398 7 Franchini, Paolo
venting process was begun 21 days later."  for context regarding the
399
8-day fill (line 366).-
400
OK. Similar comment from MT
401
402
-line 369: "power of 50 Watt" to either "50 W" (better) or "50 Watts"-
403
OK. 50 W
404
405
-line 373: "temperature error at 2.5 T is 0.04%, ∆T/T," to "temperature
406
error , ∆T/T, at 2.5 T is 0.04%"
407
and italicise the T-for-temperature to distinguish it from Tesla and be consistent with line 393-
408
OK
409 16 Franchini, Paolo
410 1 Rogers, Chris
-Note that [37] just seems to be pages 32-35 of [38] -
411 16 Franchini, Paolo
it may be better to only refer to [38] but give the specific page
412
number where relevant.-
413 7 Franchini, Paolo
Correct, removed the first citation.
414
415
-line 376: "that using" to "based on"-
416
OK. Similar comments.
417
418 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 383: "The temperature scaling and magnet-current correction
419
factors also have an associated uncertainty as they are based on the
420
0.1 K resolution of the sensors."  "...as they are based on the 0.1 K
421 5 Franchini, Paolo
resolution of the sensors." to "...as they are chosen/derived/selected
422 7 Franchini, Paolo
 based on the 0.1 K resolution/granularity of the stored values." -
423
the resolution refers to the _recording_, not the sensors.-
424
OK
425
426 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 389: "In the steady state condition.." to "While in the steady
427
state condition the liquid hydrogen was close to the boiling
428
temperature of liquid parahydrogen [39] (density 70.53 kg/m^3): the
429
average temperature of the eight sensors was  (20.51 ± 0.07) K at
430 7 Franchini, Paolo
1.085 Bar (figure 19) allowing us to determine the uncertainty in the
431
density over this period as 0.08 kg/m^3 ."-
432
OK
433
434
-line 392ish: "which resulted in the contraction of the vessel." to
435
"contracting the vessel."-
436
OK
437
438
-eq. 4 - italicise the T to be consistent with text-
439
OK
440
441 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 403:  "The pressure at which the absorber operated resulted in
442
deflection of the absorber windows, these deflections were modelled
443 7 Franchini, Paolo
using ANSYS [42]. The uncertainty in the window deflection derived
444
from the model was 20%." to  
445 5 Franchini, Paolo
"The pressure at which the absorber
446
operated resulted in deflection of the absorber windows. These
447 7 Franchini, Paolo
deflections were modelled using ANSYS [42], and the uncertainty in the
448
window deflection derived from this model was 20%."-
449
OK
450
451
-line 405: "The model showed..." to "The model shows..." match tense with "begin"-
452
OK
453
454
-line 411: "loose energy" to "lose energy"-
455
OK
456
457
-line 423: "of the of the vessel"!-
458
OK
459
460 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 423: "Combined, the change in thickness of the absorber windows
461
on axis is 13 μm." I don't understand what's being combined. Should
462 7 Franchini, Paolo
this be "The change in the combined thicknesses of the absorber
463
windows on axis is 13 μm."?-
464 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
465
466 24 Franchini, Paolo
8 Summary
467
-line 439: needs a sentence about the LH2.-
468 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
469 7 Franchini, Paolo
470 5 Franchini, Paolo
-Somewhere (after acknowledgements?) there should be a Code
471
Availability statement along the lines of:
472
"The MAUS software used to reconstruct and analyse the MICE data is
473
available at https://doi.org/10.17633/rd.brunel.8337542. The analyses
474
presented here use MAUS version 3.2.0."
475 7 Franchini, Paolo
Possibly not strictly needed, but given that we have "MAUS v.3.2.0"
476 5 Franchini, Paolo
emblazoned on every plot...-
477 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK. Added reference to DOI link.
478 5 Franchini, Paolo
479 1 Rogers, Chris
References
480
-[36] Capitalise MICE-
481 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
482 1 Rogers, Chris
483 16 Franchini, Paolo
-[37] Is this needed if it's part of [38]-
484
OK
485 17 Franchini, Paolo
486
-[41] Is this pp.421–423 of Proceedings of IPAC’10, Kyoto, Japan
487
(2010)? https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/IPAC10/papers/mopeb065.pdf-
488 7 Franchini, Paolo
Added the URL in the bibliography since was not present in BibTex
489 5 Franchini, Paolo
490
-[43] "Gridpp" to "GridPP" and "uk grid" to "UK Grid"-
491
OK
492
493 7 Franchini, Paolo
6 Tracker
494
-fig. 13: "central fibres of plane" to "central fibres of each plane"-
495
OK
496
497
-line 231: Does changing "particles" to "individual particles"
498
strengthen our point?-
499
OK
500
501
-line 300: "this was periodically recovered..." Is the "periodically"
502
appropriate?-
503
OK. Dropped
504
505 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 302: "Monte Carlo simulation was used with realistic field and
506 7 Franchini, Paolo
beam conditions to..." to "Monte Carlo simulation with realistic field
507
and beam conditions was used to..."-
508
OK
509
510 5 Franchini, Paolo
-fig. 14: Caption should add something like "Each dot represents a
511
single data-taking run between 10 minutes and 3hrs long." I forget the
512 7 Franchini, Paolo
exact lower limit, for the upper the exact value isn't important but
513
needs to be representative.-
514
OK. 10 minutes seems reasonable but need to check my code once get access back to Warwick's cluster.
515
516
-fig. 15: Needs a meaningful caption!-
517
OK
518
519
-fig. 16: Needs a meaningful caption, and it's the Downstream tracker!-
520
OK
521
522 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 320: "The position of the trackers along the beam line was taken
523
from the survey." Eh? I thought it was "inferred" at line 316. Either
524 7 Franchini, Paolo
this sentence is referring to the position of something else, or it's
525
a misleading duplicate and should be deleted.-
526
OK. Deleted
527
528 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 326: "The position of each tracker along the beamline was
529
determined from the survey." Eh?, again. "An initial estimate for the
530 7 Franchini, Paolo
position of each tracker along the beamline had been inferred from the
531
survey." ?-
532
OK
533
534
-line 324: "position... was specified..." to "was described..."-
535 1 Rogers, Chris
OK