Project

General

Profile

System Performance Paper Draft 5 » History » Version 56

Franchini, Paolo, 15 May 2021 17:24

1 1 Rogers, Chris
h1. System Performance Paper Draft 5
2 2 Rogers, Chris
3 56 Franchini, Paolo
< [[System_Performance_Paper_Draft_4| Last meeting]] | [[System_Performance_Paper_Draft_6| Next meeting]] >
4 55 Franchini, Paolo
5 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)
6 4 Franchini, Paolo
7 5 Franchini, Paolo
h2. Comments received (in progress):
8 1 Rogers, Chris
9 8 Franchini, Paolo
h3. Mark Tucker ✓
10 5 Franchini, Paolo
11
I have not checked actual values, and I am commenting on the presentation in the paper.
12
13
I have some comments on section 7 of this paper. Grammatically:
14
15
-1)Line 350: characterisation … was (not were)- OK
16
17
-2)Line 411, lose not loose- OK
18
19
-1)Line 423: of the of the repeated- OK
20
21
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):
22
23
-1)Line 366: 1150 mbar- OK
24
25
-2)Line 367: 1085 mbar- Ok
26
27
-3)Line 380: 1085 mbar- OK
28
29
-4)Line 384: 1505 mbar- OK
30
31
-5)Line 391: 1085 mbar- OK
32
33
-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.-
34
OK
35
36
-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, …”-
37
OK
38
39
---
40
41 9 Franchini, Paolo
h3. Rachel Gamet ✓
42 5 Franchini, Paolo
43 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.-
44
Correct. Was a typo probably coming from the fact was data reconstructed in 2018.
45 1 Rogers, Chris
46 6 Franchini, Paolo
-Fig 10 says it shows data at 400MeV/c, while in the text it says it is at 300MeV/c.-
47
Is 300 MeV/c
48 1 Rogers, Chris
49 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.-
50
Acronym added when defined
51 5 Franchini, Paolo
52 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%,....".
53
And line 376 should say "used" rather than "using".-
54
OK
55 5 Franchini, Paolo
56
---
57
58
h3. Maurizio Bonesini
59
60 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*I think the description of the Liquid Hydrogen Absorber
61 5 Franchini, Paolo
(section 7) is not pertinent. It clashes heavily with the abstract, where
62
we say that the paper `` documents the performance of the detectors used
63
in MICE to measure the muon-beam parameters''. I would skip it or at least
64 1 Rogers, Chris
put in a separate appendix, explaining why it is described. A referee may
65
argue why we do not discuss other pieces of the cooling channel, such as
66 31 Franchini, Paolo
the diffuser, ... at this point.*-
67 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. 
68 1 Rogers, Chris
69 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*In addition a relevant missing  point is how the various efficiency on
70 11 Franchini, Paolo
electron ID, muon MIS ID ... translates into a systematic error for the
71 1 Rogers, Chris
emittance measurement. At least as a guess.*-
72 37 Franchini, Paolo
The PID is analysis and beam (muoninc/pionic) dependent. For example comparing JN's scattering analysis and any other emittance one.
73 45 Franchini, Paolo
The pion contamination is compatible with what was aimed in the proposal (MICE note 21) which was 1/1000.
74 7 Franchini, Paolo
75 1 Rogers, Chris
Minor comments:
76 7 Franchini, Paolo
77
-line 35: I would add in figure 1 the acronyms TKU,TKD,SSU,SSD, FC ...
78 1 Rogers, Chris
         quoted in the text, eg
79 10 Franchini, Paolo
         Spectrometer Solenoid >   Spectrometer solenoid  ....
80 1 Rogers, Chris
                                           (SSU)
81 7 Franchini, Paolo
         to let the reader understand where they are.-
82
OK
83
         
84
         
85 10 Franchini, Paolo
-line 58:  The bars of TOF0 ...> The bars of TOF0(TO1-TOF2) were made of
86 7 Franchini, Paolo
          BC-404 (BC420) scintillators.-
87 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
88
    
89
-line 62: The TOF detector > one TOF detector-
90 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
91
92 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*line 45-110 I would be helpful to add a picture showing the stability of the
93 1 Rogers, Chris
          TOF system over data-taking. I remind a similar plot quoted in
94 36 Franchini, Paolo
          reference JINST 7(2012) P05009 (figure 18)*-
95 38 Franchini, Paolo
We have decided time ago to do not include this plot.
96
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.
97 7 Franchini, Paolo
          
98
-line 115: I would quote the type of PMT used-
99 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.
100 7 Franchini, Paolo
101
-line 126-133: I would report only for PID performances results obtained in
102 5 Franchini, Paolo
         the MICE muon beam (as done for TOF: fig 4, for KL fig 8,9,
103
         for EMR fig 12 and trackers fig 14) otherwise I would drop this
104 7 Franchini, Paolo
         paragraph.-
105
Muon beam above 200 MeV/c were used, up to the calibration beams at 400 MeV/c.
106
         
107
-line 150: figure 8 and 9 show the same results twice, in different
108 5 Franchini, Paolo
          formats. To avoid unnecessary duplication, I will show only figure
109 7 Franchini, Paolo
          9, skipping figure 8.-
110 1 Rogers, Chris
OK          
111
112
-line 146: I would quote the PMT type used-
113 7 Franchini, Paolo
As before.
114
115
-line 180: I would specify the type of SAPMT and MAPMT used in EMR-
116 1 Rogers, Chris
As before.
117 29 Franchini, Paolo
118 34 Franchini, Paolo
-Figure 11: -wording on the left panel is barely visible.-
119
OK
120
121
-*In addition I would
122 1 Rogers, Chris
           try to use a figure showing how the readout is implemented
123 31 Franchini, Paolo
           (similar to what is done in figure 7)*-
124 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).
125 1 Rogers, Chris
           
126
-line 209: the acronym SAMPT is never defined-
127
OK
128
129 44 Franchini, Paolo
-*lines 230 310: as a general remark the description of the tracker is much
130 5 Franchini, Paolo
          longer as respect to the other detectors. I would
131 1 Rogers, Chris
          trim it, avoiding details on spacepoint efficiency, noise, ...
132 31 Franchini, Paolo
          stressing only track efficiency and track fit performance*-
133 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.
134 31 Franchini, Paolo
          
135 1 Rogers, Chris
-*Figure 13: I would either replace the image with a layout of one tracker
136 7 Franchini, Paolo
          showing the different elements (as done in figure 7 for KL) or
137 31 Franchini, Paolo
          add this layout to the shown image (side by side)*-
138 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.,).
139 30 Franchini, Paolo
140 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*Section 7: see comments before.*-
141
As before.
142 7 Franchini, Paolo
143 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*Conclusions: Table 4 sounds odd to me. How track efficiency may be
144 1 Rogers, Chris
          considered PID ? Maybe its contents may be re-phrased in some
145
          sentences. I think here some considerations on the influence of
146
          PID efficiency, muon MIS ID ... on the systematic error on
147 31 Franchini, Paolo
          evaluation of emittances must be put.*-
148
Removed the Track finding efficiency (already included in the Tracking section) from the table.
149 22 Franchini, Paolo
150 31 Franchini, Paolo
-I think the paper is useful for other MICE papers, but it needs some
151
further refinements-
152 7 Franchini, Paolo
153 31 Franchini, Paolo
154 1 Rogers, Chris
---
155
156
h3. Chris Booth
157 7 Franchini, Paolo
158
-Line 22 ";" should be a comma.-
159 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
160 7 Franchini, Paolo
161
-27 Specify "a kinetic energy of 800 MeV"?  (We normally quote total energies.)-
162 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
163 7 Franchini, Paolo
164
-33 I don't think there should be a hyphen in lithium hydride.-
165 1 Rogers, Chris
I agree, removed. PubChem doesn't show it either as a synonym.
166 7 Franchini, Paolo
167
-47 delete "and" after "while".-
168 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
169 7 Franchini, Paolo
170
-93 "Two slab signals".-
171 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
172 7 Franchini, Paolo
173
-107 Clumsy sentence.  "of the measured ToF distribution".  Or just delete first "of"?-
174 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
175 7 Franchini, Paolo
176
-153-4 Repetition of statement about zero field.-
177
OK
178
179 5 Franchini, Paolo
-157 Comma after "300 MeV/c".-
180 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
181
182 1 Rogers, Chris
-168 Delete "for" after "allowed".-
183
OK
184
185 7 Franchini, Paolo
-169 "Each plane", rather than "one plane".-
186 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
187 7 Franchini, Paolo
188
-171 "could" rather than "would.-
189 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
190 29 Franchini, Paolo
191 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.*-
192
OK. Added beam direction
193 29 Franchini, Paolo
194 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.)-
195 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
196
197 1 Rogers, Chris
-<Line numbers screwed up!> In "based on these distinct characteristics", it is not clear what "these" refers to.-
198 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
199
200 1 Rogers, Chris
-Would it be useful to show specimen distribution of rho_p and chi-squared for both mu and e?-
201 7 Franchini, Paolo
They were present in former drafts, but moved out in more recent versions.
202
203 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*243 Is the tracker in figure 13 really "on the bed of the coordinate measuring machine"?*-
204
Yes it is. Ken confirms
205 5 Franchini, Paolo
206 7 Franchini, Paolo
-245 Comma should be semicolon, or new sentence.-
207
OK
208 5 Franchini, Paolo
209 7 Franchini, Paolo
-Figures 15 & 16: Captions are not very informative!-
210
OK
211 5 Franchini, Paolo
212 31 Franchini, Paolo
-*Figures 15 & 16: Scales on ordinates don't look optimal.*-
213
Reducing the Y scale would magnify the marginal non-linear trends of the histogram.
214 7 Franchini, Paolo
215
-Figure 17 Consistence of algorithm or consistency of constants/results?-
216
OK, "results"
217 25 Franchini, Paolo
218
-*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).*-
219 5 Franchini, Paolo
The correction factors have to rely on the the 0.1K resolution of the readout.
220 7 Franchini, Paolo
221
-376 Delete "that" after "devised".-
222 1 Rogers, Chris
"...was devised that used..."
223 5 Franchini, Paolo
224 7 Franchini, Paolo
-403 Comma should be semicolon, or new sentence.-
225
OK
226 15 Franchini, Paolo
227
-References: Capitalisation does not seem very consistent between different references!-
228 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
229 1 Rogers, Chris
230
-463 [8] "mK" (capital K).-
231 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
232 5 Franchini, Paolo
233 7 Franchini, Paolo
-501 [25] Should "Jim" be here?!-
234
OK
235 15 Franchini, Paolo
236
-517 [32] Journal abbreviation and capitalisation inconsistent with others. (Also "Feb" not "FEB"?)-
237 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
238 7 Franchini, Paolo
239
-524 [36] "MICE" (capitals).-
240 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
241 7 Franchini, Paolo
242
243 1 Rogers, Chris
244
---
245
246
h3. Henry Nebrensky
247 27 Franchini, Paolo
248 41 Franchini, Paolo
-1) I agree that at first sight this paper looks a bit strange with the
249 1 Rogers, Chris
LH2 stuffed in with the detectors; but I don't know if a separate
250
absorber-only paper would be accepted and this all needs publishing at
251 41 Franchini, Paolo
some point.-
252
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.
253
254 49 Franchini, Paolo
-*My thought was instead to present this paper as demonstrating the
255 1 Rogers, Chris
basis of our claim that we correctly measure single particles, such
256
that it can be cited by the beam physics papers. That is, we would
257
like to write something along the lines of "MICE measured the passage
258 28 Franchini, Paolo
of single muons through the apparatus[1] which we here aggregate into
259 50 Franchini, Paolo
a series of synthetic beams... "*-
260
-*Making that claim requires that we
261 51 Franchini, Paolo
 know we have a muon (does the PID ID?)
262
 know its trajectory entering/leaving some stuff (does the Tracker Track?)
263
 know what the stuff is (else the exercise is pointless!)
264 1 Rogers, Chris
I think this paper could (in combination with previous ones) justify
265
that claim without significant rework of the science payload, but it
266
will need rewriting the Intro/Summary sections.
267
I don't know how clear that is and it's very late here; basically it's
268
about justifying "MICE measured the passage of single muons..." vs
269 49 Franchini, Paolo
merely "MICE recorded some sets of space-point hits..."*-
270
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).
271 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.
272 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.
273 1 Rogers, Chris
274 18 Franchini, Paolo
-2) I understand the temptation to list the PMTs and electronics used
275 1 Rogers, Chris
by the various detectors, but the result is hardly fun to read. Is
276
there a way to instead present this in a single table covering all
277 18 Franchini, Paolo
detectors?-
278
Technical information for all the detectors is present in other papers.
279
A comprehensive list of details would mean scintillators, PMTs, cables, DAQ electronics, et cetera.
280 5 Franchini, Paolo
281 1 Rogers, Chris
===
282
283
Title
284 43 Franchini, Paolo
-*"Performance of the MICE diagnostic system" A "diagnostic system" is
285 1 Rogers, Chris
something that tells you why MICE doesn't work. "detector and absorber
286 43 Franchini, Paolo
systems"? (but see above)*-
287 47 Franchini, Paolo
This is not necessary true. A diagnosis would not just be used to spot a problem, but to characterize.
288 7 Franchini, Paolo
289 5 Franchini, Paolo
-Abstract
290
line 12: mention LH2: "This paper documents the performance of the
291 7 Franchini, Paolo
detectors used in MICE to measure the muon-beam parameters, and the
292
physical properties at run-time of the liquid-hydrogen absorber."-
293 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
294
295 7 Franchini, Paolo
1 Intro
296
-line 18: The timeS taken... (to match "... are long")-
297
OK
298
299 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 21: "Ionization cooling..." the semicolon in that sentence is
300
wrong; use a pair of commas (one after [12, 13] and one instead of the
301 7 Franchini, Paolo
semicolon) instead. Either remove those around "where it loses energy"
302
or replace them with a pair of dashes.-
303
OK
304
305 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 26: "MICE operated on the ISIS neutron and muon source..." to
306
"MICE operated at the ISIS neutron and muon source..." and "ISIS
307 1 Rogers, Chris
accelerates protons..." to "The ISIS synchrotron accelerates
308 7 Franchini, Paolo
protons..." to make it clear we're not connected with the TS1 muon
309
beamlines-
310
OK
311
312
-line 29: delete "conventional"? (DS is superconducting)-
313
OK. 
314
315
-line 31: "of two dipole magnets" to "of the two dipole magnets D1 and D2"-
316 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
317 7 Franchini, Paolo
318
-line 33: remove hyphens from "liquid-hydrogen", "lithium-hydride" and
319 21 Franchini, Paolo
"focus-coil" (to match fig. 1).-
320 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
321
322
-line 39: "and to quantify the properties..." to "and quantifies the
323
physical properties..."-
324
OK
325
326 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 43: "The instrumentation of the liquid-hydrogen absorber is
327 7 Franchini, Paolo
discussed in section 7." to "The properties of the the liquid hydrogen
328
absorber are described in section7."-
329 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
330
331 21 Franchini, Paolo
-fig.1 caption: remove hyphen from "liquid-hydrogen"-
332 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
333 1 Rogers, Chris
334 7 Franchini, Paolo
2 TOFs
335
-line 47: "while and" to "while"-
336
OK
337 14 Franchini, Paolo
338
-line 48-50 "The range of particle momentum..." This sentence is a
339
repeat of one in the introduction - is there a way to smarten this up?-
340 7 Franchini, Paolo
Removed.
341
342
-fig. 2: is there a way to indicate the beam direction?-
343
OK. Added an arrow
344 23 Franchini, Paolo
345
-line 100: can we change 'T' to 't' to avoid confusion with temperature in s7?-
346 1 Rogers, Chris
OK. Also in fig.3
347 7 Franchini, Paolo
348
-line 103: we did run various Cooling Channel and Beamline components
349
in 2018, but never took any data.-
350
OK
351 1 Rogers, Chris
352 19 Franchini, Paolo
3 Cherenkov
353
-fig. 5: is it possible to indicate the beam direction on this?-
354 12 Franchini, Paolo
OK
355
356
-line 131: move the definition of gamma to here-
357 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
358
359 13 Franchini, Paolo
4 KL
360
-fig. 7: is it possible to add an arrow indicating the beam direction?-
361 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
362 7 Franchini, Paolo
363
-line 160: "was been" to "has been"-
364
OK
365
366
-line 162: is "400 MeV/c" a typo? Other text and figure caption only
367
mention 300MeV/c-
368
OK. It is.
369 1 Rogers, Chris
370 7 Franchini, Paolo
5 EMR
371
-line 168: "apparatus" to "Cooling Channel" Possibly delete sentence as
372
it's repeated near-verbatim at line 184.-
373
OK deleted.
374 26 Franchini, Paolo
375 1 Rogers, Chris
-fig. 11: is it possible to indicate the beam direction, e.g. an arrow
376
labelled "beam" running down the central gutter?  The usual
377 26 Franchini, Paolo
expectation is left to right, but the figures here are all either
378
subtly or very different!-
379 1 Rogers, Chris
OK.
380
381 21 Franchini, Paolo
7 Liquid-Hydrogen Absorber
382
-line 349: remove hyphen from "liquid-hydrogen" throughout-
383 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
384
385
-line 357: "the two domes of the thin aluminium end windows..." to "the
386
two domes of the end windows..."-
387
OK
388
389
-fig. 18 caption: "absorber/focus-coil (AFC) module" to "focus coil
390
module (FC)" for consistency with Intro-
391
OK
392
393 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 361: "The temperature of the vessel was recorded by eight
394
LakeShore Cernox 1050 SD sensors with a resolution of 0.1 K." to "The
395 1 Rogers, Chris
temperature of the vessel was recorded by eight LakeShore Cernox 1050
396
SD sensors at a resolution of 0.1 K." or even  "The temperature of the
397
vessel was measured by eight LakeShore Cernox 1050 SD sensors recorded
398 7 Franchini, Paolo
at a resolution of 0.1 K" - the resolution refers to the _recording of
399
the data values_, not the sensors.-
400
OK
401
402
-line 367: remove hyphen from "steady-state"-
403
OK
404
405 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 368: "...until the venting process began." to "... until the
406 7 Franchini, Paolo
venting process was begun 21 days later."  for context regarding the
407
8-day fill (line 366).-
408
OK. Similar comment from MT
409
410
-line 369: "power of 50 Watt" to either "50 W" (better) or "50 Watts"-
411
OK. 50 W
412
413
-line 373: "temperature error at 2.5 T is 0.04%, ∆T/T," to "temperature
414
error , ∆T/T, at 2.5 T is 0.04%"
415
and italicise the T-for-temperature to distinguish it from Tesla and be consistent with line 393-
416
OK
417 16 Franchini, Paolo
418 1 Rogers, Chris
-Note that [37] just seems to be pages 32-35 of [38] -
419 16 Franchini, Paolo
it may be better to only refer to [38] but give the specific page
420
number where relevant.-
421 7 Franchini, Paolo
Correct, removed the first citation.
422
423
-line 376: "that using" to "based on"-
424
OK. Similar comments.
425
426 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 383: "The temperature scaling and magnet-current correction
427
factors also have an associated uncertainty as they are based on the
428
0.1 K resolution of the sensors."  "...as they are based on the 0.1 K
429 5 Franchini, Paolo
resolution of the sensors." to "...as they are chosen/derived/selected
430 7 Franchini, Paolo
 based on the 0.1 K resolution/granularity of the stored values." -
431
the resolution refers to the _recording_, not the sensors.-
432
OK
433
434 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 389: "In the steady state condition.." to "While in the steady
435
state condition the liquid hydrogen was close to the boiling
436
temperature of liquid parahydrogen [39] (density 70.53 kg/m^3): the
437
average temperature of the eight sensors was  (20.51 ± 0.07) K at
438 7 Franchini, Paolo
1.085 Bar (figure 19) allowing us to determine the uncertainty in the
439
density over this period as 0.08 kg/m^3 ."-
440
OK
441
442
-line 392ish: "which resulted in the contraction of the vessel." to
443
"contracting the vessel."-
444
OK
445
446
-eq. 4 - italicise the T to be consistent with text-
447
OK
448
449 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 403:  "The pressure at which the absorber operated resulted in
450
deflection of the absorber windows, these deflections were modelled
451 7 Franchini, Paolo
using ANSYS [42]. The uncertainty in the window deflection derived
452
from the model was 20%." to  
453 5 Franchini, Paolo
"The pressure at which the absorber
454
operated resulted in deflection of the absorber windows. These
455 7 Franchini, Paolo
deflections were modelled using ANSYS [42], and the uncertainty in the
456
window deflection derived from this model was 20%."-
457
OK
458
459
-line 405: "The model showed..." to "The model shows..." match tense with "begin"-
460
OK
461
462
-line 411: "loose energy" to "lose energy"-
463
OK
464
465
-line 423: "of the of the vessel"!-
466
OK
467
468 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 423: "Combined, the change in thickness of the absorber windows
469
on axis is 13 μm." I don't understand what's being combined. Should
470 7 Franchini, Paolo
this be "The change in the combined thicknesses of the absorber
471
windows on axis is 13 μm."?-
472 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
473
474 24 Franchini, Paolo
8 Summary
475
-line 439: needs a sentence about the LH2.-
476 5 Franchini, Paolo
OK
477 7 Franchini, Paolo
478 5 Franchini, Paolo
-Somewhere (after acknowledgements?) there should be a Code
479
Availability statement along the lines of:
480
"The MAUS software used to reconstruct and analyse the MICE data is
481
available at https://doi.org/10.17633/rd.brunel.8337542. The analyses
482
presented here use MAUS version 3.2.0."
483 7 Franchini, Paolo
Possibly not strictly needed, but given that we have "MAUS v.3.2.0"
484 5 Franchini, Paolo
emblazoned on every plot...-
485 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK. Added reference to DOI link.
486 5 Franchini, Paolo
487 1 Rogers, Chris
References
488
-[36] Capitalise MICE-
489 7 Franchini, Paolo
OK
490 1 Rogers, Chris
491 16 Franchini, Paolo
-[37] Is this needed if it's part of [38]-
492
OK
493 17 Franchini, Paolo
494
-[41] Is this pp.421–423 of Proceedings of IPAC’10, Kyoto, Japan
495
(2010)? https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/IPAC10/papers/mopeb065.pdf-
496 7 Franchini, Paolo
Added the URL in the bibliography since was not present in BibTex
497 5 Franchini, Paolo
498
-[43] "Gridpp" to "GridPP" and "uk grid" to "UK Grid"-
499
OK
500
501 7 Franchini, Paolo
6 Tracker
502
-fig. 13: "central fibres of plane" to "central fibres of each plane"-
503
OK
504
505
-line 231: Does changing "particles" to "individual particles"
506
strengthen our point?-
507
OK
508
509
-line 300: "this was periodically recovered..." Is the "periodically"
510
appropriate?-
511
OK. Dropped
512
513 5 Franchini, Paolo
-line 302: "Monte Carlo simulation was used with realistic field and
514 7 Franchini, Paolo
beam conditions to..." to "Monte Carlo simulation with realistic field
515
and beam conditions was used to..."-
516
OK
517
518 5 Franchini, Paolo
-fig. 14: Caption should add something like "Each dot represents a
519
single data-taking run between 10 minutes and 3hrs long." I forget the
520 7 Franchini, Paolo
exact lower limit, for the upper the exact value isn't important but
521
needs to be representative.-
522
OK. 10 minutes seems reasonable but need to check my code once get access back to Warwick's cluster.
523
524
-fig. 15: Needs a meaningful caption!-
525
OK
526
527
-fig. 16: Needs a meaningful caption, and it's the Downstream tracker!-
528
OK
529
530 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 320: "The position of the trackers along the beam line was taken
531
from the survey." Eh? I thought it was "inferred" at line 316. Either
532 7 Franchini, Paolo
this sentence is referring to the position of something else, or it's
533
a misleading duplicate and should be deleted.-
534
OK. Deleted
535
536 1 Rogers, Chris
-line 326: "The position of each tracker along the beamline was
537
determined from the survey." Eh?, again. "An initial estimate for the
538 7 Franchini, Paolo
position of each tracker along the beamline had been inferred from the
539
survey." ?-
540
OK
541
542
-line 324: "position... was specified..." to "was described..."-
543 1 Rogers, Chris
OK
544 54 Franchini, Paolo
545
---
546
547
h3. Paul Kyberd (on 5.5):
548
549
550
Line 13
551
comma before physical and after properties.
552
Comma after parameters can stat or not too taste
553
???
554
555
line 23 ... the beam is accelerated. It refers to the phase space
556
OK
557
558
line 24 The time
559
OK
560
561
line 28 no comma after the close bracket
562
OK
563
564
line 34 deleta "a repetition rate"
565
OK
566
567
l 35 repleace "with a rate of" with "at"
568
OK
569
570
l 35 "Pions crated in the interaction of the bema and target"
571
OK
572
573
l 45 no hyphen in coordinate - OUP and CUP
574
Ok
575
576
l 56  to measure  - colon and them semi-colons to replace the commas
577
OK
578
579
580
h3. Chris Rogers (on 5.5):
581
582
583
The author list checks out - it looks the same as the nature paper, except Paolo has added some updated "currently ats".
584
OK
585
586
References:
587
In general, please be consistent when reporting dates, either use (month, year) or (year)
588
OK
589
590
[5] Please reference the CERN yellow report and also put a date on
591
OK
592
593
[20], [35] Elsewhere you have used full journal name and month, year rather than JINST
594
OK
595
596
[17] vs [27], [32], elsewhere: use the same journal name for the same journal (full name or abbreviation)
597
OK
598
599
[40] Not sure, is it appropriate to put [accessed blah] for this one? Should you do that for other URLs? Up to you.
600
OK
601
602
Probably worth checking for similar issues in other references.
603
OK
604
605
Introduction:
606
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).
607
OK
608
609
Line 48: "the beam, its evolution" -> "the beam and its evolution"
610
OK
611
612
Line 53: "the scintillating fibre trackers discussed in section 6" for consistency.
613
OK
614
615
Line 54: "7" -> "section 7"
616
OK
617
618
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."
619
OK
620
621
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.
622
OK
623
624
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.
625
OK
626
627
Line 219: "of 400 MeV/c, this maximised" -> of 400 MeV/c. This maximised"
628
OK
629
630
Line 254: produces -> produced.
631
OK
632
633
Line 256: The quality of a test statistic may be characterised -> The quality of this test statistic was characterised
634
OK
635
636
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."
637
OK
638
639
Line 275: "does not repeat" -> "did not repeat"
640
OK
641
642
Line 279: figure 12) -> figure 12.
643
OK
644
645
Line 328: "Overall the high track-finding efficiency was found to be
646
consistent with that introduced by the number of dead channels and did not introduce significant systematic uncertainties in analysis of the MICE data."
647
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.
648
OK
649
650
Line 406: resolution of 0.1 K -> resolution of 0.1 K.
651
OK
652
653
Line 421: cause -> caused
654
OK
655
656
Line 426: I think this paragraph should be in past tense for consistency
657
OK
658
659
Line 454: "had to be" -> "was"
660
OK
661
662
Line 454: "internally, the" -> "internally. The"
663
OK
664
665
Line 493: "in presence of" -> "in the presence of"
666
OK
667
668
Line 494: "lithium hydrade"-> "lithium hydride"
669
OK