Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:36:01 -0600
From: Peter Shanahan <shanahan@fnal.gov>
Subject: comments
To: Steve Geer <sgeer@fnal.gov>
Message-id: <Pine.SGI.4.05.10003281430140.3374777-100000@fnppd.fnal.gov>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hi Steve,

        Here are my comments on "Physics at a Neutrino Factory," March 24th
  draft.  I am amazed at the overall quality of the document, especially given
  the breakneck speed at which it was put together.   Most of my comments
  are trivial.  My style comments are particularly obnoxious and impertinent, 
  and should be ignored if you have the slightest disagreement! Regards,

Peter Shanahan


  Page Paragraph
    1             - My name should not be on the author list

    5     3       - Since the nue-bar oscillation signal at LSND is 
                    on the order of 4 to 5 times the background (as I 
                    understand it), my personal opinion is that "essentially 
                    pure numu-bar beam" overstates the purity a bit.

>> Do you have a suggestion for a revised sentence ?

    4     5       - There is a problem in the first few sections with a
                    final or initial "s" being hyphenated.

>> We will try to fix the hyphenation problem for the final report.

    7   Fig 1     - Neutrino fluxes are labeled as "CC rates"

>> done

                  
    8     2       - "The number of nue and numu CC events..." is followed
                    by numu and numu-bar CC rates

>> done


    8     3       - "the total nu and nu-bar interaction rates pe incident
                     particle..."  Should this be "per muon decay..."?

>> done

  
    11  Tab 1     - Although it's clear in the text, is it worth putting
                    "per 10^20 decays" in the caption of this table?


>> done

    13    1       - tex error: $\nu_mu$ -> $\nu_\mu$


>> done

    13    3       - typo: need a space after comma in "Note that,even"


>> done

    13    3       - "Because most of neutrinos produced in the forward 
                     direction are detected,..."  Shouldn't this be more
                     like "Because most neutrinos produced in the forward 
                     direction traverse the detector..."?
HMS yep, fixed in revised draft2
      
>> done

    17    1         most of the comments here are style issues, so don't 
                    hesitate to ignore them...

                  - I think the "really" in "really fundamental" is unnecessary.
                  - at the end of this same sentence, I think the ? is 

>> we like the really

                    unnecessary, since the "questions" are not posed in the
                    interrogative mood.
                  - Cant needs an '

>> done done

                  - "take a hard look" -> consider ?
>> done

                  - "lepton mixing matrix that controls" -> ".... determines"

>> controls seems also to be good

    18    2       - "...since Higgs triplets are not observed..."  Would this
                    be better off as a statement about EW properties of
                    observed particles?  (or do I completely miss the point?)

>> Will consult with Stephen Parke.


    19    4       - should the \bar{}'s be swapped on the "by CPT invariance"
                    statement, just to make it symmetric with the above 
                    equation?  (even though one follows from the other)


    22    4       - in the statement about defining "representative" scenarios,
                    should there be a remark about what a finite set of 
                    scenarios does and doesn't accomplish?  I.e., why
                    can this finite set be taken to be reasonably representative
                    in setting detector parameters for a nufact based 
                    oscillation program? (if it's there, and I missed it, sorry)

>> The introductory piece to the section has been expanded a bit
>> ... hpoefully this helps


    25   Tab 3    - delta m_32 label shows up in 1st two rows

>> done


    30      1     - "horitonal" typo

>> done

    31      1     - "anamoly" typo

>> done

    39   Fig 17   - is there time to have this remade with labels? 
    
>> done

    42     3      - reference to Figure 3.4.2...

>> Latex problem ... needs to be fixed before we are done.

    45     3      - "...considered also considered lost"

>> done

    46   Fig 23   - is there time to have the figure remade with a graphical
                    legend? 
 
    51     1      - "Cern" -> "CERN"

>> done

    51     2      - another style comment: is the "again" in "Although again
                    a kink is not seen..." necessary?

>> removed "again"

    52     3      - "factory of a few" -> "factor of a few"

>> done

    54     1      - this section refers to "Section A," etc. 

>> done

    72     1      - Could there be a remark about the interaction of
                    matter effects with CP violation effects?  E.g., how
                    would Fig. 47 change in vacuum (I don't know the
                    baseline assumed in this plot.)

>> Fig. 47 is a plot of R as a function of baseline. With no matter 
>> effects R->0.5 (antinu/nu sigma) i.e. the value at short baselines.
>> Added to caption: "With no matter or CP effects $R\sim0.5$ for all baselines."

    81     1      - Equation 60 has a period after it, and is followed by
                    "where the F_i are Structure Functions..."

>> done

=======================================================================
  Fermilab MS-231                            Phone: (+1) 630 840 8378
  P.O. Box 500                               Fax:   (+1) 630 840 6311
  Batavia, IL 60510 USA