[esa-t474] Energy resolution paper, second draft

[Matthew Wing]

Hi Alex, Juergen and Michele,

I have read through the paper and append comments below.  I think it looks 
pretty good and have mostly textual comments--many minor, but some not 
completely trivial points and questions.

Cheers,
Matthew.



o l.21.  $e^+e^-$" as on l.52.

o l.26.  "2006--2007"

o l.28.  I am not sure what is meant here.  Do you mean that upon exiting
   the spectrometer the beam was restored to its original orbit ?

o l.40.  "masses" -> "properties"

o l.42.  Why do you discuss Higgs direct reconstruction and not a
   threshold scan ?

o l.44.  brackets around "1--2" and a bit more space around the \cdot.

o l.44-5.  I would remove everything after 10-4 and end the sentence
   there.  I think it's obvious that if you are discussing this uncertainty
   you are trying to get it down to an acceptable level.

o l.49.  "of achieving"

o l.55-8.  A long sentence with hyphens needed before "based", so avoid by
   :

   "... a non-invasive energy spectrometer using beam position monitors
    (BPMs).  The proposed setup is similar to that used for ..."

o l.60.  "$E_b = 500 GeV", i.e. clear that it is E_b and not \sqrt{s}.

o l.63.  "But" -> "However".

o eq.1.  "magnet" in roman.
          space between "B" and "dl"; also on l.67, l.143.
          need to say what "c" and "e" are.

o l.72.  "over" -> "to"

o l.93.  Remove "by M. Viti"

o l.93.  "His" -> "The"

o l.95-6.  "The analysis has here been extended by ..."

o l.101.  "In this publication, we estimate ..."

o l.102.  More space around the dots.

o l.116.  "was providing" -> "provided"

o l.120.  Remove "unique", as most accelerators are.

o l.125.  "energy by controlling"

o l.126.  Start a new sentence after "sections" as the sentence is long
   and the second part is important.

o l.128.  "Fig." -> "fig." as elsewhere.

o Figure 2.  Can "x" and "y" be subscripts ?  Otherwise you have
   "Reading By" which looks odd.

   Caption.  "diagnostics"  (sp.).

o l.161.  "... five linac-type BPMs ..."

o l.162.  "ones" -> "cavities"

o l.173.  "simultaneously" (sp.).

o l.177.  "$x$-plane" -> "$x$-direction" !?

o l.179.  "talk about" -> "refer to"

o l.183.  Remove "from a run".
           "zero current".
           inverted commas other way   round.

o l.184.  What does "manipulated" mean ?

o l.187.  Comma after "beamline" would help.

o l.188.  "Hence only data with magnets ..."

o l.198.  Comma after "system" helps.

o l.201.  "... allows decoding of both ..."

o l.211.  No apostrophes.

o l.211.  "... each BPM, $i$, to ...", which if correct, helps.

o Eqs. 2&3.  "BPM" in roman.

o l.213.  No apostrophes.  Could write "$\alpha_{0,i}$ and $\beta_{0,i}$"

o l.214.  "called" -> "the"

o l.224.  "$-$0.5"

o l.229.  "estimated" -> "determined"

o l.232.  Why have you assumed "5 mm"  ?

o l.234.  More space around \cdot.

o l.235-41 should come before l.232-34.  And change to :

   "The residual is larger than our earlier published value [4] which was
    close to 1\,$\mu$m.  This is due to the exclusion of BPMs 9, 10 and 11
    from this analysis.  Therefore, BPM 4 which was previously in the
    "centre-of-gravity" here gives the penultimate measurement.  Clearly,
    the precision of the orbit reconstruction at BPM 4 was affected."

o Figure 3, caption.  Remove "prediction" (twice).

o l.246-9.  Was there intentional movement of BPM 4 when the magnets were
   turned on or did this happen due to the magnets ?  Suggest :

   - l.246-7.  "... BPM 4 also moved in order ..."
   - l.247-8.  Remove sentence as say in next sentence anyway.
   - l.248.  "... the Zygo interferometer ..."
   - l.249.  Remove "was", again  depending on intenionality or not.

o Figure 5.  Top left label and numbers overlapping.

   Caption, line 2.  Inverted commas wrong way round.

o l.259.  "centre" -> "center" as used Am. sp. elsewhere.

o l.260.  Inverted commas wrong way round.  Check elsewhere.

o l.266.  Where has 1% come from ?  This was not mentioned in l.111-9
   where the beam properties are discussed.  There is just an energy spread
   of 0.15% mentioned.

o l.271.  Where does 200 MeV come from ?

o l.274-5.  "seem" is not a good word.  Remind us again of the scan steps.

o l.282.  Does 10 MeV include the energy scale factor ?

o l.285.  "(Section 3.1)"

o l.282,286.  More space around the \cdot.

o l.307.  Remove "for"

o Figure 7.  Best to have key in same order as points going from top to
   bottom, i.e. 4, 1, 2, 3.

o l.325.  "is off" -> "differs" or more explanation of "off" needed.

o l.326-8.  I am not sure what the sentence says.

o l.328-330.  Differences of 0.2-0.4 mT can not explain the 1 mT
   differences seen ?

o l.330.  "0.2--0.4"

o l.340.  Can we "clearly" see a "step-like behavior" ?

o l.354.  "results in"

o l.363.  No hyphen.

o Figure 9, bottom right.  x-axis label needs "MeV"

   "MeV" not needed in titles on right.

o Table 1.  I do not understand the energy scan numbers ?

   Title for resolution, use a "\times" rather than "x".

o l.385.  Second "5.5" should be "5.1" ?

o l.393-4.  "... create a spurious offset in $y$ due to an offset in $x$.

o l.395.  "plane" -> "coordinates" ?

o Figure 10, caption.  "x" and "y" in mathmode.

o l.424.  "allow for a" -> "give a"

o l.426.  Remove "a"

o l.428.  Reference missing.

o l.446.  "a return"

o l.456,9.  No "s" in "ancillary"

o l.458.  "in cost"

o l.460.  "$B$"

o l.463.  "doublets" (sp.)

o l.468-70.  Remove sentence as already said.

o l.474.  "... were about 300\,nm ..."

o l.475-7.  Not sure what this means ?  Anyway remove "carefully".

o l.479.  "$B$".

o l.485.  "revealed that" -> "achieved"

o l.486.  "can be achieved by means of" -> "using"

o l.488.  Remove "But".

o l.490.  "are also required."

o l.492.  "allows to reduce" -> "reduces"

o l.495.  "millimeter" (sp.)

o l.495.  "to operate" -> "operation of"

o l.509.  Remove "for".

o l.511-5.  This is not discussed before so is a bit out of the blue for
   the last part of a paper.  Suggest anyway :

   "... components would aid inn designing a future device for the next
    linear collider."  And no more.


> Dear All,
>
> I will be on vacation for the next 3 weeks, so I thought it would be a good 
> time to show you guys what Michele, Juergen and I have managed to put 
> together so far. Any comments and corrections are very welcome, and thanks to 
> those who have already emailed me with some suggestions!
>
> Best regards,
> Alexey


-----------------------------------
Matthew Wing
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
Tel: +44 20 7679 7650
Fax: +44 20 7679 7145