From:	SMTP%"smaria@husg1.fnal.gov"  3-NOV-1997 23:16:10.14
To:	TOBACK
CC:	
Subj:	PRL draft

Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 23:16:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Maria Spiropulu <smaria@husg1.fnal.gov>
Subject: PRL draft
To: frisch@uccdf.uchicago.edu, toback@uccdf.uchicago.edu, reb@hep.anl.gov,
 stk@sgi6.hep.ANL.gov, yagil@fnald.fnal.gov, mdshapiro@lbl.gov
Cc: smaria@husg1.fnal.gov
Message-id: <199711040516.XAA07303@husg1.fnal.gov>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: exmh version 1_6_1b
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


	Hello, 
	
	A very well written draft; a few very minor comments that i have:

** Thank you

page 4, paragraph 1, line 13
"contain missing E_T" : to "contain" something "missing" sounds maybe
			a little weird.  perhaps rephrase.

** A reasonable request, however we think it is clear and have kept it.

page 4, paragraph 2, line 6

"(SVX)[4] makes measurements between.." : maybe 
	"provides measurements in the r-phi plane between..." 

** This sentence has been removed

page 5, paragraph 2, ; line 4

"b)no tracks, or only one track.." : " b)at most one track..."

** A reasonable request, but again we thought it was clear so we left it.

page 5, paragraph 2 ; line 8

"..candidate [11] within..." : perhaps put the reference at the end 
				of the sentence?

** Done. 

page 5, paragraph 2; reference [12] at page 11: 

"Only..." : There are the WHA TDC's too. then the window is not 
	symmetric so maybe put -20<t<35  for the CHA TDC's that 
	you are refering to or 56ns around the interaction time.

** You are correct. The normal arrival  time ce t=7 ns and the window is in fact
   symmetric   and +-28  ns.   However, we  didn't  have  enough  room to make a
   distinction  between the CHA and the  WHA. Similarly, we  didn't have room to
   point out the travel time from the interaction point to the detector face. As
   it stands we feel that it's clear and not misleading.

page 5 , last paragraph, line 2 from bottom:

"well parametrized by.."  for my edification i guess:
                where should i look for the fit? i did 
		not check all your notes carefully but i did not 
		see the fits (x, y) anywhere.

** I'm glad  you asked.  This is done  in great  gory detail  in CDF Note 4183.
   Pages 14-20.


page 6, first paragraph, lin 8 :

"Since identification of the jets..." this could be confusing if one
			thinks that the analysis is serial
			and not in parallel modes

** Hmmm...That's is a  reasonable concern. The  paragraph has been fixed and we
   think that it now is clearer. 

page 6, second paragraph : regarding the jet multiplicity

			does it worth it to mention a cone size?
			is the result for the multijet events 
			stable with the cone?

** The cone size, Et and  eta region were picked to  be consistent with the top
   group, as is  referenced. We did not  study how the  answer varies with cone
   size. From past  experience it shouldn't make too  much difference except to
   introduce   technical  problems  with the  jets  picking up  the photons and
   creating met problems. 


page 8, first paragraph: 1st sentence:
			do you perhaps need to underline the fact that 
			the MET is so high when you show the rates?
  
** All the electron and  photon candidates, as well  as the met and ee mass are
   well above the  thresholds used. We wanted to do  something conservative and
   consistent so we left it as is. 
 
best,
maria