E852 experiment

Analysis of Eta Pi0 system with the decay Eta -> Pi+ Pi- Pi0

********************************************

Draft 5

Date: 1 June 2006 From: Rob Hackenburg

Subject: Draft5_3

I have attached two possible versions. Please let me apologize if you think I have made too many changes. Some of the figures still need some work, such as the not-quite-white background in Fig. 1, and maybe the fonts and axes in Fig. 4 could be made a little darker, but actually they are not too bad.

In the first version, 5.3, I have "linearized" the development, so that I believe it is easier to follow. This involved moving some equations around, as well as some text, and adding a sentence or two to define some quantities which were not explained. I removed several repetitious statements, or else combined some which contained duplicate information, sometimes from different sections. I removed or shortened one or two statements that can be found in the long eta pi- article [12]. I removed a couple of sentences from the conclusion which merely repeated what had already been said -- it is a conclusion, not a summary, and, since it is such a short paper, there is no need to summarize. I went back to the two-column format, and allowed the figures and tables to move a little in order to optimize the pages for the smallest possible size. I made numerous minor changes that would be required under the APS Style Manual, such as 12,345.00 -> 12 345.00, $MeV/c^2$ -> MeV$/c^2$, etc. This version is down to about 5.5 pages. I have one question, regarding Eq. (10): You state that it goes to zero for m -> mth, but it obviously goes to infinity. Is there an error in Eq. (10), or should some more words be added to explain it?

In the second version, 5.3s, I started with 5.3, and then became somewhat more ruthless for the purpose of shortening it so that it may be published as a Phys. Rev. Letter. I removed the section-headings to get it even shorter, but they are still there, just commented out (section headings aren't really needed in a short letter). I think 5.3s is actually a better version, but you may disagree. This short version is a little less than 5 pages, and we may be able to get it a little shorter. I think it would be best to publish in Phys. Rev. Letters, and 5.3s begins to make that possible. It really is a very nice work, you have worked very hard to get it right, and it should appear in the best journal (in my opinion).

I have since talked to Gary, who tells me that the TRC has issues with this paper, and that Neal may be rewriting it, so I have forwarded these versions to Neal. Best Regards, Bob

Response

Thanks a lot for corrections. Welcome Neal to read again and rewrite if it's necessary.