Project

General

Profile

System Performance Paper Draft 5 » History » Version 41

Franchini, Paolo, 30 April 2021 10:02

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 39 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. The diffuser is discussed elsewhere. 
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 1 Rogers, Chris
emittance measurement. At least as a guess.*-
70 37 Franchini, Paolo
The PID is analysis and beam (muoninc/pionic) dependent. For example comparing JN's scattering analysis and any other emittance one.
71 40 Franchini, Paolo
The pion contamination is compatible with what we aimed in the proposal (MICE note 21) which was 1/1000.
72 7 Franchini, Paolo
73 1 Rogers, Chris
Minor comments:
74 7 Franchini, Paolo
75
-line 35: I would add in figure 1 the acronyms TKU,TKD,SSU,SSD, FC ...
76 1 Rogers, Chris
         quoted in the text, eg
77 10 Franchini, Paolo
         Spectrometer Solenoid >   Spectrometer solenoid  ....
78 1 Rogers, Chris
                                           (SSU)
79 7 Franchini, Paolo
         to let the reader understand where they are.-
80
OK
81
         
82
         
83 10 Franchini, Paolo
-line 58:  The bars of TOF0 ...> The bars of TOF0(TO1-TOF2) were made of
84 7 Franchini, Paolo
          BC-404 (BC420) scintillators.-
85 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
86
    
87
-line 62: The TOF detector > one TOF detector-
88 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
89
90 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*line 45-110 I would be helpful to add a picture showing the stability of the
91 1 Rogers, Chris
          TOF system over data-taking. I remind a similar plot quoted in
92 36 Franchini, Paolo
          reference JINST 7(2012) P05009 (figure 18)*-
93 38 Franchini, Paolo
We have decided time ago to do not include this plot.
94
The plot you quote was just one month of data taking. Over years of runs the calibration procedure has been constantly improved and the resolution depends on the spread of the beam used. For example external pixels have a larger residual bias in slab Dt. So showing different beams over the whole detector would produce artificial variations. Viktor confirmed this back in 2019 when was discussed the first time.
95 7 Franchini, Paolo
          
96
-line 115: I would quote the type of PMT used-
97
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.
98
99
-line 126-133: I would report only for PID performances results obtained in
100 5 Franchini, Paolo
         the MICE muon beam (as done for TOF: fig 4, for KL fig 8,9,
101
         for EMR fig 12 and trackers fig 14) otherwise I would drop this
102 7 Franchini, Paolo
         paragraph.-
103
Muon beam above 200 MeV/c were used, up to the calibration beams at 400 MeV/c.
104
         
105
-line 150: figure 8 and 9 show the same results twice, in different
106 5 Franchini, Paolo
          formats. To avoid unnecessary duplication, I will show only figure
107 7 Franchini, Paolo
          9, skipping figure 8.-
108 1 Rogers, Chris
OK          
109
110
-line 146: I would quote the PMT type used-
111 7 Franchini, Paolo
As before.
112
113
-line 180: I would specify the type of SAPMT and MAPMT used in EMR-
114 1 Rogers, Chris
As before.
115 29 Franchini, Paolo
116 34 Franchini, Paolo
-Figure 11: -wording on the left panel is barely visible.-
117
OK
118
119
-*In addition I would
120 1 Rogers, Chris
           try to use a figure showing how the readout is implemented
121 31 Franchini, Paolo
           (similar to what is done in figure 7)*-
122 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).
123 1 Rogers, Chris
           
124
-line 209: the acronym SAMPT is never defined-
125
OK
126
127 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*lines 230- 310: as a general remark the description of the tracker is much
128 5 Franchini, Paolo
          longer as respect to the other detectors. I would
129 1 Rogers, Chris
          trim it, avoiding details on spacepoint efficiency, noise, ...
130 31 Franchini, Paolo
          stressing only track efficiency and track fit performance*-
131 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.
132 31 Franchini, Paolo
          
133 1 Rogers, Chris
-*Figure 13: I would either replace the image with a layout of one tracker
134 7 Franchini, Paolo
          showing the different elements (as done in figure 7 for KL) or
135 31 Franchini, Paolo
          add this layout to the shown image (side by side)*-
136 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.,).
137 30 Franchini, Paolo
138 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*Section 7: see comments before.*-
139
As before.
140 7 Franchini, Paolo
141 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*Conclusions: Table 4 sounds odd to me. How track efficiency may be
142 1 Rogers, Chris
          considered PID ? Maybe its contents may be re-phrased in some
143
          sentences. I think here some considerations on the influence of
144
          PID efficiency, muon MIS ID ... on the systematic error on
145 31 Franchini, Paolo
          evaluation of emittances must be put.*-
146
Removed the Track finding efficiency (already included in the Tracking section) from the table.
147 22 Franchini, Paolo
148 31 Franchini, Paolo
-I think the paper is useful for other MICE papers, but it needs some
149
further refinements-
150 7 Franchini, Paolo
151 31 Franchini, Paolo
152 1 Rogers, Chris
---
153
154
h3. Chris Booth
155 7 Franchini, Paolo
156
-Line 22 ";" should be a comma.-
157 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
158 7 Franchini, Paolo
159
-27 Specify "a kinetic energy of 800 MeV"?  (We normally quote total energies.)-
160 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
161 7 Franchini, Paolo
162
-33 I don't think there should be a hyphen in lithium hydride.-
163 1 Rogers, Chris
I agree, removed. PubChem doesn't show it either as a synonym.
164 7 Franchini, Paolo
165
-47 delete "and" after "while".-
166 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
167 7 Franchini, Paolo
168
-93 "Two slab signals".-
169 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
170 7 Franchini, Paolo
171
-107 Clumsy sentence.  "of the measured ToF distribution".  Or just delete first "of"?-
172 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
173 7 Franchini, Paolo
174
-153-4 Repetition of statement about zero field.-
175
OK
176
177 5 Franchini, Paolo
-157 Comma after "300 MeV/c".-
178 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
179
180 1 Rogers, Chris
-168 Delete "for" after "allowed".-
181
OK
182
183 7 Franchini, Paolo
-169 "Each plane", rather than "one plane".-
184 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
185 7 Franchini, Paolo
186
-171 "could" rather than "would.-
187 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
188 29 Franchini, Paolo
189 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.*-
190
OK. Added beam direction
191 29 Franchini, Paolo
192 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.)-
193 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
194
195 1 Rogers, Chris
-<Line numbers screwed up!> In "based on these distinct characteristics", it is not clear what "these" refers to.-
196 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
197
198 1 Rogers, Chris
-Would it be useful to show specimen distribution of rho_p and chi-squared for both mu and e?-
199 7 Franchini, Paolo
They were present in former drafts, but moved out in more recent versions.
200
201 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*243 Is the tracker in figure 13 really "on the bed of the coordinate measuring machine"?*-
202
Yes it is. Ken confirms
203 5 Franchini, Paolo
204 7 Franchini, Paolo
-245 Comma should be semicolon, or new sentence.-
205
OK
206 5 Franchini, Paolo
207 7 Franchini, Paolo
-Figures 15 & 16: Captions are not very informative!-
208
OK
209 5 Franchini, Paolo
210 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*Figures 15 & 16: Scales on ordinates don't look optimal.*-
211
Reducing the Y scale would magnify the marginal non-linear trends of the histogram.
212 7 Franchini, Paolo
213
-Figure 17 Consistence of algorithm or consistency of constants/results?-
214
OK, "results"
215 25 Franchini, Paolo
216
-*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).*-
217 5 Franchini, Paolo
The correction factors have to rely on the the 0.1K resolution of the readout.
218 7 Franchini, Paolo
219
-376 Delete "that" after "devised".-
220 1 Rogers, Chris
"...was devised that used..."
221 5 Franchini, Paolo
222 7 Franchini, Paolo
-403 Comma should be semicolon, or new sentence.-
223
OK
224 15 Franchini, Paolo
225
-References: Capitalisation does not seem very consistent between different references!-
226 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
227 1 Rogers, Chris
228
-463 [8] "mK" (capital K).-
229 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
230 5 Franchini, Paolo
231 7 Franchini, Paolo
-501 [25] Should "Jim" be here?!-
232
OK
233 15 Franchini, Paolo
234
-517 [32] Journal abbreviation and capitalisation inconsistent with others. (Also "Feb" not "FEB"?)-
235 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
236 7 Franchini, Paolo
237
-524 [36] "MICE" (capitals).-
238 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
239 7 Franchini, Paolo
240
241 1 Rogers, Chris
242
---
243
244
h3. Henry Nebrensky
245 27 Franchini, Paolo
246 41 Franchini, Paolo
-1) I agree that at first sight this paper looks a bit strange with the
247 1 Rogers, Chris
LH2 stuffed in with the detectors; but I don't know if a separate
248
absorber-only paper would be accepted and this all needs publishing at
249 41 Franchini, Paolo
some point.-
250
Included the LH2 in the abstract. The LH2 is an instrumented apparatus which deserves this discussion, in particular as a source of reference for the other analysis on LH2 data.
251
252
*My thought was instead to present this paper as demonstrating the
253 1 Rogers, Chris
basis of our claim that we correctly measure single particles, such
254
that it can be cited by the beam physics papers. That is, we would
255
like to write something along the lines of "MICE measured the passage
256 28 Franchini, Paolo
of single muons through the apparatus[1] which we here aggregate into
257
a series of synthetic beams... "*
258
*Making that claim requires that we
259
- know we have a muon (does the PID ID?)
260
- know its trajectory entering/leaving some stuff (does the Tracker Track?)
261 1 Rogers, Chris
- know what the stuff is (else the exercise is pointless!)
262
I think this paper could (in combination with previous ones) justify
263
that claim without significant rework of the science payload, but it
264
will need rewriting the Intro/Summary sections.
265
I don't know how clear that is and it's very late here; basically it's
266
about justifying "MICE measured the passage of single muons..." vs
267 27 Franchini, Paolo
merely "MICE recorded some sets of space-point hits..."*
268 1 Rogers, Chris
269 18 Franchini, Paolo
-2) I understand the temptation to list the PMTs and electronics used
270 1 Rogers, Chris
by the various detectors, but the result is hardly fun to read. Is
271
there a way to instead present this in a single table covering all
272 18 Franchini, Paolo
detectors?-
273
Technical information for all the detectors is present in other papers.
274
A comprehensive list of details would mean scintillators, PMTs, cables, DAQ electronics, et cetera.
275 5 Franchini, Paolo
276 1 Rogers, Chris
===
277
278
Title
279 17 Franchini, Paolo
*"Performance of the MICE diagnostic system" A "diagnostic system" is
280 1 Rogers, Chris
something that tells you why MICE doesn't work. "detector and absorber
281 17 Franchini, Paolo
systems"? (but see above)*
282 31 Franchini, Paolo
This is not necessary true. A diagnose would not just be used to spot a 
283 7 Franchini, Paolo
284 5 Franchini, Paolo
-Abstract
285
line 12: mention LH2: "This paper documents the performance of the
286 7 Franchini, Paolo
detectors used in MICE to measure the muon-beam parameters, and the
287
physical properties at run-time of the liquid-hydrogen absorber."-
288 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
289
290 7 Franchini, Paolo
1 Intro
291
-line 18: The timeS taken... (to match "... are long")-
292
OK
293
294 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 21: "Ionization cooling..." the semicolon in that sentence is
295
wrong; use a pair of commas (one after [12, 13] and one instead of the
296 7 Franchini, Paolo
semicolon) instead. Either remove those around "where it loses energy"
297
or replace them with a pair of dashes.-
298
OK
299
300 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 26: "MICE operated on the ISIS neutron and muon source..." to
301
"MICE operated at the ISIS neutron and muon source..." and "ISIS
302 1 Rogers, Chris
accelerates protons..." to "The ISIS synchrotron accelerates
303 7 Franchini, Paolo
protons..." to make it clear we're not connected with the TS1 muon
304
beamlines-
305
OK
306
307
-line 29: delete "conventional"? (DS is superconducting)-
308
OK. 
309
310
-line 31: "of two dipole magnets" to "of the two dipole magnets D1 and D2"-
311 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
312 7 Franchini, Paolo
313
-line 33: remove hyphens from "liquid-hydrogen", "lithium-hydride" and
314 21 Franchini, Paolo
"focus-coil" (to match fig. 1).-
315 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
316
317
-line 39: "and to quantify the properties..." to "and quantifies the
318
physical properties..."-
319
OK
320
321 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 43: "The instrumentation of the liquid-hydrogen absorber is
322 7 Franchini, Paolo
discussed in section 7." to "The properties of the the liquid hydrogen
323
absorber are described in section7."-
324 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
325
326 21 Franchini, Paolo
-fig.1 caption: remove hyphen from "liquid-hydrogen"-
327 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
328 1 Rogers, Chris
329 7 Franchini, Paolo
2 TOFs
330
-line 47: "while and" to "while"-
331
OK
332 14 Franchini, Paolo
333
-line 48-50 "The range of particle momentum..." This sentence is a
334
repeat of one in the introduction - is there a way to smarten this up?-
335 7 Franchini, Paolo
Removed.
336
337
-fig. 2: is there a way to indicate the beam direction?-
338
OK. Added an arrow
339 23 Franchini, Paolo
340
-line 100: can we change 'T' to 't' to avoid confusion with temperature in s7?-
341 1 Rogers, Chris
OK. Also in fig.3
342 7 Franchini, Paolo
343
-line 103: we did run various Cooling Channel and Beamline components
344
in 2018, but never took any data.-
345
OK
346 1 Rogers, Chris
347 19 Franchini, Paolo
3 Cherenkov
348
-fig. 5: is it possible to indicate the beam direction on this?-
349 12 Franchini, Paolo
OK
350
351
-line 131: move the definition of gamma to here-
352 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
353
354 13 Franchini, Paolo
4 KL
355
-fig. 7: is it possible to add an arrow indicating the beam direction?-
356 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
357 7 Franchini, Paolo
358
-line 160: "was been" to "has been"-
359
OK
360
361
-line 162: is "400 MeV/c" a typo? Other text and figure caption only
362
mention 300MeV/c-
363
OK. It is.
364 1 Rogers, Chris
365 7 Franchini, Paolo
5 EMR
366
-line 168: "apparatus" to "Cooling Channel" Possibly delete sentence as
367
it's repeated near-verbatim at line 184.-
368
OK deleted.
369 26 Franchini, Paolo
370 1 Rogers, Chris
-fig. 11: is it possible to indicate the beam direction, e.g. an arrow
371
labelled "beam" running down the central gutter?  The usual
372 26 Franchini, Paolo
expectation is left to right, but the figures here are all either
373
subtly or very different!-
374 1 Rogers, Chris
OK.
375
376 21 Franchini, Paolo
7 Liquid-Hydrogen Absorber
377
-line 349: remove hyphen from "liquid-hydrogen" throughout-
378 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
379
380
-line 357: "the two domes of the thin aluminium end windows..." to "the
381
two domes of the end windows..."-
382
OK
383
384
-fig. 18 caption: "absorber/focus-coil (AFC) module" to "focus coil
385
module (FC)" for consistency with Intro-
386
OK
387
388 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 361: "The temperature of the vessel was recorded by eight
389
LakeShore Cernox 1050 SD sensors with a resolution of 0.1 K." to "The
390 1 Rogers, Chris
temperature of the vessel was recorded by eight LakeShore Cernox 1050
391
SD sensors at a resolution of 0.1 K." or even  "The temperature of the
392
vessel was measured by eight LakeShore Cernox 1050 SD sensors recorded
393 7 Franchini, Paolo
at a resolution of 0.1 K" - the resolution refers to the _recording of
394
the data values_, not the sensors.-
395
OK
396
397
-line 367: remove hyphen from "steady-state"-
398
OK
399
400 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 368: "...until the venting process began." to "... until the
401 7 Franchini, Paolo
venting process was begun 21 days later."  for context regarding the
402
8-day fill (line 366).-
403
OK. Similar comment from MT
404
405
-line 369: "power of 50 Watt" to either "50 W" (better) or "50 Watts"-
406
OK. 50 W
407
408
-line 373: "temperature error at 2.5 T is 0.04%, ∆T/T," to "temperature
409
error , ∆T/T, at 2.5 T is 0.04%"
410
and italicise the T-for-temperature to distinguish it from Tesla and be consistent with line 393-
411
OK
412 16 Franchini, Paolo
413 1 Rogers, Chris
-Note that [37] just seems to be pages 32-35 of [38] -
414 16 Franchini, Paolo
it may be better to only refer to [38] but give the specific page
415
number where relevant.-
416 7 Franchini, Paolo
Correct, removed the first citation.
417
418
-line 376: "that using" to "based on"-
419
OK. Similar comments.
420
421 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 383: "The temperature scaling and magnet-current correction
422
factors also have an associated uncertainty as they are based on the
423
0.1 K resolution of the sensors."  "...as they are based on the 0.1 K
424 5 Franchini, Paolo
resolution of the sensors." to "...as they are chosen/derived/selected
425 7 Franchini, Paolo
 based on the 0.1 K resolution/granularity of the stored values." -
426
the resolution refers to the _recording_, not the sensors.-
427
OK
428
429 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 389: "In the steady state condition.." to "While in the steady
430
state condition the liquid hydrogen was close to the boiling
431
temperature of liquid parahydrogen [39] (density 70.53 kg/m^3): the
432
average temperature of the eight sensors was  (20.51 ± 0.07) K at
433 7 Franchini, Paolo
1.085 Bar (figure 19) allowing us to determine the uncertainty in the
434
density over this period as 0.08 kg/m^3 ."-
435
OK
436
437
-line 392ish: "which resulted in the contraction of the vessel." to
438
"contracting the vessel."-
439
OK
440
441
-eq. 4 - italicise the T to be consistent with text-
442
OK
443
444 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 403:  "The pressure at which the absorber operated resulted in
445
deflection of the absorber windows, these deflections were modelled
446 7 Franchini, Paolo
using ANSYS [42]. The uncertainty in the window deflection derived
447
from the model was 20%." to  
448 5 Franchini, Paolo
"The pressure at which the absorber
449
operated resulted in deflection of the absorber windows. These
450 7 Franchini, Paolo
deflections were modelled using ANSYS [42], and the uncertainty in the
451
window deflection derived from this model was 20%."-
452
OK
453
454
-line 405: "The model showed..." to "The model shows..." match tense with "begin"-
455
OK
456
457
-line 411: "loose energy" to "lose energy"-
458
OK
459
460
-line 423: "of the of the vessel"!-
461
OK
462
463 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 423: "Combined, the change in thickness of the absorber windows
464
on axis is 13 μm." I don't understand what's being combined. Should
465 7 Franchini, Paolo
this be "The change in the combined thicknesses of the absorber
466
windows on axis is 13 μm."?-
467 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
468
469 24 Franchini, Paolo
8 Summary
470
-line 439: needs a sentence about the LH2.-
471 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
472 7 Franchini, Paolo
473 5 Franchini, Paolo
-Somewhere (after acknowledgements?) there should be a Code
474
Availability statement along the lines of:
475
"The MAUS software used to reconstruct and analyse the MICE data is
476
available at https://doi.org/10.17633/rd.brunel.8337542. The analyses
477
presented here use MAUS version 3.2.0."
478 7 Franchini, Paolo
Possibly not strictly needed, but given that we have "MAUS v.3.2.0"
479 5 Franchini, Paolo
emblazoned on every plot...-
480 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK. Added reference to DOI link.
481 5 Franchini, Paolo
482 1 Rogers, Chris
References
483
-[36] Capitalise MICE-
484 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
485 1 Rogers, Chris
486 16 Franchini, Paolo
-[37] Is this needed if it's part of [38]-
487
OK
488 17 Franchini, Paolo
489
-[41] Is this pp.421–423 of Proceedings of IPAC’10, Kyoto, Japan
490
(2010)? https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/IPAC10/papers/mopeb065.pdf-
491 7 Franchini, Paolo
Added the URL in the bibliography since was not present in BibTex
492 5 Franchini, Paolo
493
-[43] "Gridpp" to "GridPP" and "uk grid" to "UK Grid"-
494
OK
495
496 7 Franchini, Paolo
6 Tracker
497
-fig. 13: "central fibres of plane" to "central fibres of each plane"-
498
OK
499
500
-line 231: Does changing "particles" to "individual particles"
501
strengthen our point?-
502
OK
503
504
-line 300: "this was periodically recovered..." Is the "periodically"
505
appropriate?-
506
OK. Dropped
507
508 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 302: "Monte Carlo simulation was used with realistic field and
509 7 Franchini, Paolo
beam conditions to..." to "Monte Carlo simulation with realistic field
510
and beam conditions was used to..."-
511
OK
512
513 5 Franchini, Paolo
-fig. 14: Caption should add something like "Each dot represents a
514
single data-taking run between 10 minutes and 3hrs long." I forget the
515 7 Franchini, Paolo
exact lower limit, for the upper the exact value isn't important but
516
needs to be representative.-
517
OK. 10 minutes seems reasonable but need to check my code once get access back to Warwick's cluster.
518
519
-fig. 15: Needs a meaningful caption!-
520
OK
521
522
-fig. 16: Needs a meaningful caption, and it's the Downstream tracker!-
523
OK
524
525 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 320: "The position of the trackers along the beam line was taken
526
from the survey." Eh? I thought it was "inferred" at line 316. Either
527 7 Franchini, Paolo
this sentence is referring to the position of something else, or it's
528
a misleading duplicate and should be deleted.-
529
OK. Deleted
530
531 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 326: "The position of each tracker along the beamline was
532
determined from the survey." Eh?, again. "An initial estimate for the
533 7 Franchini, Paolo
position of each tracker along the beamline had been inferred from the
534
survey." ?-
535
OK
536
537
-line 324: "position... was specified..." to "was described..."-
538 1 Rogers, Chris
OK