Project

General

Profile

System Performance Paper Draft 5 » History » Version 54

Franchini, Paolo, 15 May 2021 13:08

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 45 Franchini, Paolo
The pion contamination is compatible with what was 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 46 Franchini, Paolo
They were mentioned in former drafts and have been moved out following reviewers suggestions; as for the other detectors they are present in cited papers, where there are more details in terms of hardware.
98 7 Franchini, Paolo
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 44 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 48 Franchini, Paolo
The Tracker reconstruction itself is more complex than for 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 49 Franchini, Paolo
-*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 50 Franchini, Paolo
a series of synthetic beams... "*-
258
-*Making that claim requires that we
259 51 Franchini, Paolo
 know we have a muon (does the PID ID?)
260
 know its trajectory entering/leaving some stuff (does the Tracker Track?)
261
 know what the stuff is (else the exercise is pointless!)
262 1 Rogers, Chris
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 49 Franchini, Paolo
merely "MICE recorded some sets of space-point hits..."*-
268
The comment about the particle ensemble which we call "a beam" has been included. Is convenient to define a beam delivered into the detectors, but we measure single particles (opposite of other analysis where we assemble a beam, which is the ultimate object of the study).
269 53 Franchini, Paolo
I think the other points are addressed by the paper. A fully comprehensive PID is of course beam and analysis dependent, but single detectors do identify muons and discriminate between them and pions/electrons, up to EMR level.
270 52 Franchini, Paolo
As noticed during the internal review of the draft, the whole apparatus does the job it was designed for in the initial proposal, which is what we want to claim at this stage. All the other analysis use it for the specific measurements.
271 1 Rogers, Chris
272 18 Franchini, Paolo
-2) I understand the temptation to list the PMTs and electronics used
273 1 Rogers, Chris
by the various detectors, but the result is hardly fun to read. Is
274
there a way to instead present this in a single table covering all
275 18 Franchini, Paolo
detectors?-
276
Technical information for all the detectors is present in other papers.
277
A comprehensive list of details would mean scintillators, PMTs, cables, DAQ electronics, et cetera.
278 5 Franchini, Paolo
279 1 Rogers, Chris
===
280
281
Title
282 43 Franchini, Paolo
-*"Performance of the MICE diagnostic system" A "diagnostic system" is
283 1 Rogers, Chris
something that tells you why MICE doesn't work. "detector and absorber
284 43 Franchini, Paolo
systems"? (but see above)*-
285 47 Franchini, Paolo
This is not necessary true. A diagnosis would not just be used to spot a problem, but to characterize.
286 7 Franchini, Paolo
287 5 Franchini, Paolo
-Abstract
288
line 12: mention LH2: "This paper documents the performance of the
289 7 Franchini, Paolo
detectors used in MICE to measure the muon-beam parameters, and the
290
physical properties at run-time of the liquid-hydrogen absorber."-
291 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
292
293 7 Franchini, Paolo
1 Intro
294
-line 18: The timeS taken... (to match "... are long")-
295
OK
296
297 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 21: "Ionization cooling..." the semicolon in that sentence is
298
wrong; use a pair of commas (one after [12, 13] and one instead of the
299 7 Franchini, Paolo
semicolon) instead. Either remove those around "where it loses energy"
300
or replace them with a pair of dashes.-
301
OK
302
303 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 26: "MICE operated on the ISIS neutron and muon source..." to
304
"MICE operated at the ISIS neutron and muon source..." and "ISIS
305 1 Rogers, Chris
accelerates protons..." to "The ISIS synchrotron accelerates
306 7 Franchini, Paolo
protons..." to make it clear we're not connected with the TS1 muon
307
beamlines-
308
OK
309
310
-line 29: delete "conventional"? (DS is superconducting)-
311
OK. 
312
313
-line 31: "of two dipole magnets" to "of the two dipole magnets D1 and D2"-
314 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
315 7 Franchini, Paolo
316
-line 33: remove hyphens from "liquid-hydrogen", "lithium-hydride" and
317 21 Franchini, Paolo
"focus-coil" (to match fig. 1).-
318 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
319
320
-line 39: "and to quantify the properties..." to "and quantifies the
321
physical properties..."-
322
OK
323
324 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 43: "The instrumentation of the liquid-hydrogen absorber is
325 7 Franchini, Paolo
discussed in section 7." to "The properties of the the liquid hydrogen
326
absorber are described in section7."-
327 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
328
329 21 Franchini, Paolo
-fig.1 caption: remove hyphen from "liquid-hydrogen"-
330 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
331 1 Rogers, Chris
332 7 Franchini, Paolo
2 TOFs
333
-line 47: "while and" to "while"-
334
OK
335 14 Franchini, Paolo
336
-line 48-50 "The range of particle momentum..." This sentence is a
337
repeat of one in the introduction - is there a way to smarten this up?-
338 7 Franchini, Paolo
Removed.
339
340
-fig. 2: is there a way to indicate the beam direction?-
341
OK. Added an arrow
342 23 Franchini, Paolo
343
-line 100: can we change 'T' to 't' to avoid confusion with temperature in s7?-
344 1 Rogers, Chris
OK. Also in fig.3
345 7 Franchini, Paolo
346
-line 103: we did run various Cooling Channel and Beamline components
347
in 2018, but never took any data.-
348
OK
349 1 Rogers, Chris
350 19 Franchini, Paolo
3 Cherenkov
351
-fig. 5: is it possible to indicate the beam direction on this?-
352 12 Franchini, Paolo
OK
353
354
-line 131: move the definition of gamma to here-
355 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
356
357 13 Franchini, Paolo
4 KL
358
-fig. 7: is it possible to add an arrow indicating the beam direction?-
359 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
360 7 Franchini, Paolo
361
-line 160: "was been" to "has been"-
362
OK
363
364
-line 162: is "400 MeV/c" a typo? Other text and figure caption only
365
mention 300MeV/c-
366
OK. It is.
367 1 Rogers, Chris
368 7 Franchini, Paolo
5 EMR
369
-line 168: "apparatus" to "Cooling Channel" Possibly delete sentence as
370
it's repeated near-verbatim at line 184.-
371
OK deleted.
372 26 Franchini, Paolo
373 1 Rogers, Chris
-fig. 11: is it possible to indicate the beam direction, e.g. an arrow
374
labelled "beam" running down the central gutter?  The usual
375 26 Franchini, Paolo
expectation is left to right, but the figures here are all either
376
subtly or very different!-
377 1 Rogers, Chris
OK.
378
379 21 Franchini, Paolo
7 Liquid-Hydrogen Absorber
380
-line 349: remove hyphen from "liquid-hydrogen" throughout-
381 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
382
383
-line 357: "the two domes of the thin aluminium end windows..." to "the
384
two domes of the end windows..."-
385
OK
386
387
-fig. 18 caption: "absorber/focus-coil (AFC) module" to "focus coil
388
module (FC)" for consistency with Intro-
389
OK
390
391 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 361: "The temperature of the vessel was recorded by eight
392
LakeShore Cernox 1050 SD sensors with a resolution of 0.1 K." to "The
393 1 Rogers, Chris
temperature of the vessel was recorded by eight LakeShore Cernox 1050
394
SD sensors at a resolution of 0.1 K." or even  "The temperature of the
395
vessel was measured by eight LakeShore Cernox 1050 SD sensors recorded
396 7 Franchini, Paolo
at a resolution of 0.1 K" - the resolution refers to the _recording of
397
the data values_, not the sensors.-
398
OK
399
400
-line 367: remove hyphen from "steady-state"-
401
OK
402
403 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 368: "...until the venting process began." to "... until the
404 7 Franchini, Paolo
venting process was begun 21 days later."  for context regarding the
405
8-day fill (line 366).-
406
OK. Similar comment from MT
407
408
-line 369: "power of 50 Watt" to either "50 W" (better) or "50 Watts"-
409
OK. 50 W
410
411
-line 373: "temperature error at 2.5 T is 0.04%, ∆T/T," to "temperature
412
error , ∆T/T, at 2.5 T is 0.04%"
413
and italicise the T-for-temperature to distinguish it from Tesla and be consistent with line 393-
414
OK
415 16 Franchini, Paolo
416 1 Rogers, Chris
-Note that [37] just seems to be pages 32-35 of [38] -
417 16 Franchini, Paolo
it may be better to only refer to [38] but give the specific page
418
number where relevant.-
419 7 Franchini, Paolo
Correct, removed the first citation.
420
421
-line 376: "that using" to "based on"-
422
OK. Similar comments.
423
424 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 383: "The temperature scaling and magnet-current correction
425
factors also have an associated uncertainty as they are based on the
426
0.1 K resolution of the sensors."  "...as they are based on the 0.1 K
427 5 Franchini, Paolo
resolution of the sensors." to "...as they are chosen/derived/selected
428 7 Franchini, Paolo
 based on the 0.1 K resolution/granularity of the stored values." -
429
the resolution refers to the _recording_, not the sensors.-
430
OK
431
432 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 389: "In the steady state condition.." to "While in the steady
433
state condition the liquid hydrogen was close to the boiling
434
temperature of liquid parahydrogen [39] (density 70.53 kg/m^3): the
435
average temperature of the eight sensors was  (20.51 ± 0.07) K at
436 7 Franchini, Paolo
1.085 Bar (figure 19) allowing us to determine the uncertainty in the
437
density over this period as 0.08 kg/m^3 ."-
438
OK
439
440
-line 392ish: "which resulted in the contraction of the vessel." to
441
"contracting the vessel."-
442
OK
443
444
-eq. 4 - italicise the T to be consistent with text-
445
OK
446
447 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 403:  "The pressure at which the absorber operated resulted in
448
deflection of the absorber windows, these deflections were modelled
449 7 Franchini, Paolo
using ANSYS [42]. The uncertainty in the window deflection derived
450
from the model was 20%." to  
451 5 Franchini, Paolo
"The pressure at which the absorber
452
operated resulted in deflection of the absorber windows. These
453 7 Franchini, Paolo
deflections were modelled using ANSYS [42], and the uncertainty in the
454
window deflection derived from this model was 20%."-
455
OK
456
457
-line 405: "The model showed..." to "The model shows..." match tense with "begin"-
458
OK
459
460
-line 411: "loose energy" to "lose energy"-
461
OK
462
463
-line 423: "of the of the vessel"!-
464
OK
465
466 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 423: "Combined, the change in thickness of the absorber windows
467
on axis is 13 μm." I don't understand what's being combined. Should
468 7 Franchini, Paolo
this be "The change in the combined thicknesses of the absorber
469
windows on axis is 13 μm."?-
470 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
471
472 24 Franchini, Paolo
8 Summary
473
-line 439: needs a sentence about the LH2.-
474 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
475 7 Franchini, Paolo
476 5 Franchini, Paolo
-Somewhere (after acknowledgements?) there should be a Code
477
Availability statement along the lines of:
478
"The MAUS software used to reconstruct and analyse the MICE data is
479
available at https://doi.org/10.17633/rd.brunel.8337542. The analyses
480
presented here use MAUS version 3.2.0."
481 7 Franchini, Paolo
Possibly not strictly needed, but given that we have "MAUS v.3.2.0"
482 5 Franchini, Paolo
emblazoned on every plot...-
483 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK. Added reference to DOI link.
484 5 Franchini, Paolo
485 1 Rogers, Chris
References
486
-[36] Capitalise MICE-
487 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
488 1 Rogers, Chris
489 16 Franchini, Paolo
-[37] Is this needed if it's part of [38]-
490
OK
491 17 Franchini, Paolo
492
-[41] Is this pp.421–423 of Proceedings of IPAC’10, Kyoto, Japan
493
(2010)? https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/IPAC10/papers/mopeb065.pdf-
494 7 Franchini, Paolo
Added the URL in the bibliography since was not present in BibTex
495 5 Franchini, Paolo
496
-[43] "Gridpp" to "GridPP" and "uk grid" to "UK Grid"-
497
OK
498
499 7 Franchini, Paolo
6 Tracker
500
-fig. 13: "central fibres of plane" to "central fibres of each plane"-
501
OK
502
503
-line 231: Does changing "particles" to "individual particles"
504
strengthen our point?-
505
OK
506
507
-line 300: "this was periodically recovered..." Is the "periodically"
508
appropriate?-
509
OK. Dropped
510
511 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 302: "Monte Carlo simulation was used with realistic field and
512 7 Franchini, Paolo
beam conditions to..." to "Monte Carlo simulation with realistic field
513
and beam conditions was used to..."-
514
OK
515
516 5 Franchini, Paolo
-fig. 14: Caption should add something like "Each dot represents a
517
single data-taking run between 10 minutes and 3hrs long." I forget the
518 7 Franchini, Paolo
exact lower limit, for the upper the exact value isn't important but
519
needs to be representative.-
520
OK. 10 minutes seems reasonable but need to check my code once get access back to Warwick's cluster.
521
522
-fig. 15: Needs a meaningful caption!-
523
OK
524
525
-fig. 16: Needs a meaningful caption, and it's the Downstream tracker!-
526
OK
527
528 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 320: "The position of the trackers along the beam line was taken
529
from the survey." Eh? I thought it was "inferred" at line 316. Either
530 7 Franchini, Paolo
this sentence is referring to the position of something else, or it's
531
a misleading duplicate and should be deleted.-
532
OK. Deleted
533
534 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 326: "The position of each tracker along the beamline was
535
determined from the survey." Eh?, again. "An initial estimate for the
536 7 Franchini, Paolo
position of each tracker along the beamline had been inferred from the
537
survey." ?-
538
OK
539
540
-line 324: "position... was specified..." to "was described..."-
541 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
542 54 Franchini, Paolo
543
---
544
545
h3. Paul Kyberd (on 5.5):
546
547
548
Line 13
549
comma before physical and after properties.
550
Comma after parameters can stat or not too taste
551
???
552
553
line 23 ... the beam is accelerated. It refers to the phase space
554
OK
555
556
line 24 The time
557
OK
558
559
line 28 no comma after the close bracket
560
OK
561
562
line 34 deleta "a repetition rate"
563
OK
564
565
l 35 repleace "with a rate of" with "at"
566
OK
567
568
l 35 "Pions crated in the interaction of the bema and target"
569
OK
570
571
l 45 no hyphen in coordinate - OUP and CUP
572
Ok
573
574
l 56  to measure  - colon and them semi-colons to replace the commas
575
OK
576
577
578
h3. Chris Rogers (on 5.5):
579
580
581
The author list checks out - it looks the same as the nature paper, except Paolo has added some updated "currently ats".
582
OK
583
584
References:
585
In general, please be consistent when reporting dates, either use (month, year) or (year)
586
OK
587
588
[5] Please reference the CERN yellow report and also put a date on
589
OK
590
591
[20], [35] Elsewhere you have used full journal name and month, year rather than JINST
592
OK
593
594
[17] vs [27], [32], elsewhere: use the same journal name for the same journal (full name or abbreviation)
595
OK
596
597
[40] Not sure, is it appropriate to put [accessed blah] for this one? Should you do that for other URLs? Up to you.
598
OK
599
600
Probably worth checking for similar issues in other references.
601
OK
602
603
Introduction:
604
I think you should mention frictional cooling. It is likely to come into production use at PSI in the next couple of years. There was a PRL paper published last year on it (lead author Angela Papa. I think Dan Kaplan is also an author).
605
OK
606
607
Line 48: "the beam, its evolution" -> "the beam and its evolution"
608
OK
609
610
Line 53: "the scintillating fibre trackers discussed in section 6" for consistency.
611
OK
612
613
Line 54: "7" -> "section 7"
614
OK
615
616
Line 60: why is 240 MeV/c relevant? I think you need to introduce in section 1, perhaps at line 39, a sentence like "Beams having muon central momenta between 140 and 240 MeV/c were used for ionisation cooling studies."
617
OK
618
619
Line 116: I found this sentence difficult to read. I think "The Delta t resolution, sigma_Deltat, will be given by sigma_Deltat = 2 sigma_t, assuming that...." would be easier. Note also the position of the commas.
620
OK
621
622
Fig. 6: I think the title should just be CkovA and CkovB if it is easy to change. Don't worry if it is fiddly.
623
OK
624
625
Line 219: "of 400 MeV/c, this maximised" -> of 400 MeV/c. This maximised"
626
OK
627
628
Line 254: produces -> produced.
629
OK
630
631
Line 256: The quality of a test statistic may be characterised -> The quality of this test statistic was characterised
632
OK
633
634
Line 257: "the fraction, alpha of" does not sit well with "the contamination, beta, the fraction of". I think it should be "the fraction of the muon sample that is rejected, alpha, and the fraction of the electron sample that is selected, beta."
635
OK
636
637
Line 275: "does not repeat" -> "did not repeat"
638
OK
639
640
Line 279: figure 12) -> figure 12.
641
OK
642
643
Line 328: "Overall the high track-finding efficiency was found to be
644
consistent with that introduced by the number of dead channels and did not introduce significant systematic uncertainties in analysis of the MICE data."
645
I don't think this is true. I would prefer for this sentence to be removed. I had to put in a correction for tracker inefficiency and for high amplitude bins it was quite significant (10  % IIRC). For the core bins it was a few %, which was significant compared to the effect we were trying to measure.
646
OK
647
648
Line 406: resolution of 0.1 K -> resolution of 0.1 K.
649
OK
650
651
Line 421: cause -> caused
652
OK
653
654
Line 426: I think this paragraph should be in past tense for consistency
655
OK
656
657
Line 454: "had to be" -> "was"
658
OK
659
660
Line 454: "internally, the" -> "internally. The"
661
OK
662
663
Line 493: "in presence of" -> "in the presence of"
664
OK
665
666
Line 494: "lithium hydrade"-> "lithium hydride"
667
OK