Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Private/RefereeComments/Section_2
- Timestamp:
- Aug 26, 2013, 8:48:15 AM (11 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Private/RefereeComments/Section_2
v1 v2 35 35 There are several problems with the logic of the above: 36 36 37 1. The two sentences contradict themselves : do charged pions deposit all 38 their energy in HCAL, or in both ECAL and HCAL? 37 1. The two sentences contradict themselves : do charged pions deposit all their energy in HCAL, or in both ECAL and HCAL? 39 38 40 1. In the second sentence, one should be more specific and write e.g. 41 charged pions instead of pions (pi0s are not long lived). 39 1. In the second sentence, one should be more specific and write e.g. charged pions instead of pions (pi0s are not long lived). 42 40 43 1. Are ”such particles” stable in Delphes? If yes why is there a discussion 44 about their decay products? Are fECAL and fHCAL fixed, or do they 45 depend on the decay products (if any)? How exactly do fECAL and 46 fHCAL depend on the decay products? What does ”according to their 47 decay products” mean ? What are the decay products of charged pions in DELPHES ? 41 1. Are ”such particles” stable in Delphes? If yes why is there a discussion about their decay products? Are fECAL and fHCAL fixed, or do they depend on the decay products (if any)? How exactly do fECAL and fHCAL depend on the decay products? What does ”according to their decay products” mean ? What are the decay products of charged pions in DELPHES ? 48 42 49 43 All in all, the whole paragraph needs substantial work, and the DELPHES … … 67 61 reader will certainly miss this subtlety. 68 62 69 * ECAL andHCAL are undefined, even though the casual reader may63 * ECAL and HCAL are undefined, even though the casual reader may 70 64 go as far as guessing that they are defined by equation 2.1 (?) 71 65
