System Performance Paper Draft 6¶
< Last meeting |
line 13 "liquid hydrogen absorber" sounds like a big sponge to absorb spills! Maybe "energy absorber", or put "absorber" in quotation marks?
line 29 Delete "with".
line 43 Confusing! "The instrumentation" in the previous line means something completely different. Avoid using the same terminology?
"The MICE apparatus consisted..."
line 60 Missing "F" in "TOF1".
Consistency? Hyphen in "BC-404", but not in "BC420"?
lines 67-8 Remove colon, replace semicolon with comma.
Ok. I think there are different school of thought about this.
Fig 6 caption: beta gamma is not the velocity! Does this mean beta c?
Fig 8 caption: Refer to KL in the caption.
line 309 Spurious "[htb]" escaped from a figure placement!
Fig 14: I understand you want to make the variation with momentum look minimal, but are these the optimal vertical scales?
I think so.
Below is my first set of comments on the latest version; majority are
minor but a couple, esp. for
line 198, may need some expert input.
12 "...physical properties at run-time of the liquid hydrogen
absorber." to "...physical properties of the liquid hydrogen absorber
during running." sounds less awkward
19: "the storage ring." to "a storage ring." Should be indefinite
article as no ring is specified
19: "The time taken..." to "The times taken..." as different
techniques will be differently fast; in any case "time" is subject of
"are long" in line 21, so else must change the latter.
21: Move closing parenthesis from after  to after 
27: Capitalise "ISIS Neutron and Muon Source" as STFC think the whole
thing is the name
28: "accelerates protons" to "accelerates pulses of protons"? It's not
obvious what the 50 Hz refers to.
29: "with at 0.78 Hz." to "at 0.78 Hz."
42: "evolution across the magnetic channel." to "evolution along the
magnetic channel."? (To me, "across" implies transverse direction.)
42: "The instrumentation used to quantify the physical properties of
the liquid hydrogen absorber are also documented."
The sentiment is
needed but as-is this sentence is confusing as it ends up implying
that the TOFs are instrumenting the LH2!
I would merge this with the
previous sentence to get something like "This paper documents the
performance of the instrumentation which was used to fully
characterise the beam and its evolution along the magnetic channel,
and quantifies the physical properties of the liquid hydrogen
absorber." and also start the next sentence with "The beam
instrumentation..." to help disambiguate.
2 Time-of-flight detectors
60: "The bars of TOF0 (TO1, TOF2) were made of BC-404 (BC420)
i) change "TO1" to "TOF1";
ii) include name of manufacturer (Bicron, IIRC);
iii) I think the paragraph would read better if "scintillators" was replaced with "plastic scintillator" or "scintillating plastic".
Ok. Yes is Bicron
61: Swap over "R4998" with "Hamamatsu" - generally use
Fig. 2 caption: "two fishtail," to "two fishtails,"
67: I'm possibly misunderstanding, but is the CAMACness relevant?
Either omit or else need to state that FADCs were VME?
67: It's capitalised as "LeCroy" 73: I think changing "rose rapidly, subsequently decaying" to "rose
rapidly before decaying" would improve readability
74: "The scintillation light travels..." and also the next sentence
should be in past tense to match the rest of the section.
I hope I've understood correctly here: this is about the speed of the
envelope of the detected light intensity including delays from oblique
rays, rather than the speed of light in plastic.
75: "The light-travel time depends on the distance of the particle
crossing from the PMT." Remove hyphen: "The light's travel time
depended on the distance of the particle crossing from that PMT."
76: "The light-propagation speed in the slabs was determined to be
13.5 cm/ns." Remove hyphen: "The propagation speed of the light pulse
along the slabs..." Possibly also the sentence at line 74 should then
start "The pulse of scintillation light travelled..."
88: "Precise determination..." sentence should be past tense:
"required" and "allowed"
98: Change "the average of the slab times" to "the average of the
102: Again change "slab times" to "slab-crossing times"
103: Tenses are inconsistent: change "will be given" to "is given".
3 Cherenkov Detectors
114: Use words for consistency with rest of paper: change "designed
primarily to provide π-μ separation..." to "designed to distinguish
muons from pions at particle momenta above 200 MeV/c, ..."
Shouldn't that be 210 MeV/c, as per next paragraph (but design != reality)? I've
dropped the "primarily" as we don't say what they were designed to do
OK. Is stated above ~200MeV/c so compatible with 210 MeV/c
116: Can also drop the second instance of "particle" from that sentence.
125: Change "for beam less than" to "for beams below"
130: Possibly just me again, but the singular/plural doesn't match.
Since we have "performance of the detectorS" then I would expect
corresponding "turn-on pointS", "light yieldS" and "fitS to data"
OK. Sounds reasonable to me.
4 KLOE-Light Calorimeter
143: I think it should be plural "lead sheetS" as it's layers of
(fibres in lead), not (layers of fibres) in lead
146: A missing "the" and the relationship to the KLOE calorimeter
should be made clearer: change to "“lighter” than the ratio of 1:1
used in the similar(|prior|predecessor) calorimeter for the KLOE
147: "Lead/scintillator layers were stacked into slabs, 40 mm in
depth." Channelling the thought of pancakes, I would interpret the
depth of a stack as the sum of the layers direction, which from the
inset of fig. 7 is 132 mm depth, not 40 mm.
149: Change "(three on each side)" to "(three at each end)"?
151: It seems strange to not explicitly state here the FADC used given
that we have done so for TOF and CKov, and yet are now talking about a
consequence of the specific choice. CAEN 1724, same as TOFs.
Fig. 7 caption: Add "Only one of the six PMT assemblies is shown."
Fig. 7: The indicated beam direction looks very oblique. There are
PMTs at both ends of the slab, so I think a ~horizontal L-to-R arrow
would be just as correct.
154: Change "focus coils" to singular "focus coil" since it refers to
the FC assembly. Remove hyphen from "beam-momentum" or (better)
replace with beamline.
155: Remove hyphen from "beam-momentum" or (better) just "momentum".
(It's clarified in 157 anyway.)
156: Singular/plural: change to "The response of the KL to muons and
pions WAS observed..."
165: What are "photo-statistics"? Possibly some expansion needed here.
5 Electron Muon Ranger
173: Streamline "Planes were mounted such that the angle between
successive planes was 90° so that hits in neighbouring planes defined
a position." to "Successive planes were mounted perpendicularly, so
that hits in neighbouring planes defined a position."
175: No hyphen - change "wave-length" to "wavelength"
177: Change "using a single-anode PMT" to "using one single-anode PMT"
as the repetition makes the point clearer?
182: Change "multi-anode photomultiplier" to either "multi-anode PMT"
(or "MAPMT") for consistency
198: The sentence "In this configuration the beamline produced pions
and muons in comparable quantities and electrons." is poor - it looks
like the second "and" might be a typo for "to". Can we avoid the
ambiguity by being specific? NB I DON'T KNOW THE COMPOSITION! but we
should write what we mean, e.g. "In this configuration the beamline
produced pions and muons in similar quantities, as well as a smaller
number of electrons." or "... produced pions, muons and electrons in
similar quantities." or whatever.
OK. Muons and pions are in similar quantities, along with some electrons.
219 (215+4): There should be quote marks around the first use of
"plane density" to clarify that it's a name, and is NOT the literal
density of the planes (which is about 61 per-metre).
OK. Adde for consistency also to "shower spread".
223: I'm struggling with "The quality of a test statistic was
characterised...". Should it be "The quality of this statistical test
248: It's not the bundles that are grouped, as implied by "Bundles
of seven fibres were grouped into a single readout channel...". Change
to "Fibres were grouped into one bundle of seven for each readout
channel, to match the resolution to that imposed by multiple
scattering and reduce the overall number of readout channels."
Fig. 12 caption: i) Is the final sentence "Bundles of..." needed here,
given it repeats from the main text? ii) If so, it should match the
present tense of the captions (fibres ARE grouped...) and see above!
258: "These calibrations..." sentence needs re-working: existing
"calculate" hints that we can get NPE without emprical input, and also
during this sentence the paragraph moves from calibration to
production data-taking. I think change to "These calibrations were
used to correct the number of photoelectrons (NPE) recorded by the
tracker electronics during beam-on running."?
281: Simplify "determined using hits found in..." to "determined from
289: Change "spacepoint finding efficiency" to "spacepoint-finding
efficiency" for consistency with line above
314: Singular/plural: change to "The dowels were used to locate each
tracker precisely with respect to the axis of the warm bore of its
316: "monuments mounted on the spectrometer-solenoid cryostats." not
just that but mounted on the same well away from the bore, hence the
inferring. I think this needs stressing but am struggling to find the
right phrase. "externally mounted on the SS cryostats"? "mounted on
the SS cryostat outer jackets"?
Title: Beam-based alignment is very different (and independent) from
LH2 temperature, say. So shouldn't it be plural ("Diagnostic
I think we can keep it singular considering MICE as a whole.
Table 3: the caption is weirdly vague about what data these apply to,
given the detail embedded in fig 16. Change to something like "Optimal
alignment constants measured in the high-momentum straight-track data
acquired during May 2017 (summarised from Figure 16)."
7 Liquid Hydrogen Absorber
Fig. 17: Indicate the 230mm and 350mm lengths in the right panel...
surely low-hanging fruit for the journal referee!
OK. Added the distances. Couldn't find a better imagine or schematic, of course is too detailed for the purpose of the section.
354: Add "The vessel was surrounded by a second pair of safety
windows." to clarify which windows the 350mm refers to.
366: I still think "the period of data-taking" should be "the 21 day
period of data-taking" to put the 8 days in context without the reader
having to figure this out from fig 18.
374: It's not obvious why the extended description of the venting
process is needed in this paper (it's because the 1505 mbar venting
pressure is used for a temperature calibration reference).
Change "used the boiling point." to "used the boiling point, as observed
during the venting process."
Should line 368 include "increase in pressure to 1505 mbar and ..."? That might be for Mark/Craig to say.
359: "recorded at a resolution of 0.1 K." It's not a resolution but a
truncation - 21.692 becomes 21.6. I know I've already changed this
and 381/2 at v5 but I'm still not sure it gets the point across.
Something like "...sensors, but with the values truncated for storage
at a granularity of 0.1 K."
381: Change: "... they were derived based on the 0.1 K resolution of
the stored values." to "... they were derived based on the 0.1 K
resolution of the retrieved, truncated, values."
381: The sentence starting "For example..." is inconsistent in
382: "a calibrated sensor ... could only read" is Not True - the
sensors are fine, it's the stored/retrieved values that are
truncated. The cut-off correction logic comes from  (Note 524) so
needs the cite.
"For example, a calibrated sensor at boiling temperature and 1505 mbar
should read 21.692 K, but we can only recover|retrieve a value of
21.65 K (21.6 K truncated plus 0.05 K cut-off correction ) i.e.
off by 0.042 K."
8 Summary and conclusions
References / Author List
The context for this is that MICE have previously disseminated numbers for detector performance, and I (Henry) wanted to make it clear that we are NOT contradicting ourselves as the different numbers apply to different configurations, e.g. Step 1 vs Step IV; though most easily by specifying dates not Step:
I think the best way of doing that is to excise the "from 2008 to
2018" from line 27, and instead have "This paper documents the
performance, during 2015-2017, of the instrumentation... " at line 41.
Specifying the 2008 start doesn't really help much except cause
confusion, and the LH2 & detectors didn't get run in 2018, so
"2015-2017" is both correct and agrees with fig.13, which is nice!
sometimes references are out of order
The ordering should be correct since is done automatically by latex following the citation order. Sometime one can have references cited multiple times in the text, but the first time they appear are in order. Citations in captions of figures might not follow the order because images are basically free to float around the document.
lettering in some plots has to be bigger (fig 14 is an example)
Some figures did not had the optimal width radio wrt the page width. Adjusting this has helped the readability.
figures looks different in appearance: lettering, used fonts, ...
something has to be done to have them more uniform
Similar plots have similar styles (eg fig. 16). Attempting otherwise some image editing will produce nasty results in my opinion. In the JInst author manual there is no mention for an uniform style across the figures. Overall they are not so different (all ROOT plots, no Excels...).
Figure 1: The arrows with the label MICE experiment have to encompass
also TOF1,TOF2,KL,EMR that are outside. In addition there are
TOF0 and CKV.
Removed it for clarity, the caption explains the components. "MICE experiment" label is redundant. Won't replace it with "instrumented magnetic channel" to do not mess with the fonts.
line 56: assuming a particular mass -> assuming a mass hypothesis
line 62: after shield. Please add
For TOF1 and TOF2 an additional soft iron (ARMCO) local shield was
also used [a,b].
[a] M. Bonesini,R.Bertoni,A. de Bari, M. Rossella ``Behaviour in magnetic
fields of fast conventional and fine-mesh photomultipliers'', NIM A693
[b] M. Bonesini ``The TOF1 local shielding '', MICE note DET-455
Fig 4: why a value for mean/RMS is not put for pions also ?
Electrons and muons have a fairly good Gaussian distribution, once excluded the tails. This is not the case for pions that have an asymmetric distribution.
Fig 10: the detector is put tilted in a odd position. Please put a comment.
OK. "top perspective"
line 435: it seems odd to have tables in a conclusion. I would split section
8 into summary of performances with tables and a conclusion, eg
9. Summary of performances
I think the section is too short to justify two separate sections.
lettering in some plots has to be bigger (fig 14 is an example)
I guess the worst problem are still
fig 6 x,y axis lettering
fig 8 x,y axis lettering
fig 16 x axis lettering
adjustable tungsten and brass diffusers
this could mean diffusers of tungsten and diffusers of brass of diffusers of a mixture
"set of adjustable diffusers some made of tungsten and some of brass" - not sure if this is
not too picky
The measure before the colon implies that all points in the list are measure
should be "used to: measure .... beam; to measure the transverse ....detectors; and to ..
to measure the time of flight (TOF) of the particles that made up the beam;
to measure the transverse position at which the particle crossed each of the detectors;
and to provide the trigger for the experiment.
...and electrons" add a comma here and after "beam"
l 60 fishtail singular
l 123 The Cherenkov counters should have an apostrophe " counters' "
Fig 5. e) GORE reflector ... GORE is not defined
GORE is the brand (as in GORE-TEX). I think the exact nomenclature is "GORE DRP" which is the registered name.
Fig 12. Is it worth commenting on the colour cast on the photograph?
"Photograph, with UV-filtered light, of one of the MICE trackers, showing..."