Hi,
	Here are the replies to your comments on the second posting 
of the gamma-b paper.
				Ray


>From william@cepheid.physics.utoronto.ca Mon Apr 23 10:28:17 2001
>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:01:51 -0500 (EST)
>Subject: Re: Comments on "Searches for New Physics in Events with a Photon
>
>Hi Ray,
>
>Just a couple of quick comments on your replies to our comments. You
>needn't take them very seriously. I am seriously bored on this
>morning's owl shift... Just trying to find something to do that
>doesn't involve alot of concentration...
>
>
>William
>
> >
> >Abstract:
> >
> >1) It would be a good idea to put some numerical results in the abstract.
> 
>     Abstracts should be short- this one is already long. there is no single
> number that seems sufficiently more important than some of the others
> to be singled out.
>
>WT: But papers should have a "result", preferably a quantifiable one.
>WT: We are trying to do quantifiable physics. I understand your generic
>WT: search strategy tries to avoid setting a limit on only one model but
>WT: isn't there someway you can summarise the generic exclusion ... by
>WT: cross-section limit for example? Clearly I have not read the paper in
>WT: a long time so this might be a bad suggestion. But I think the principle
>WT: of trying to put a numerical result with errors (or 95%CL if it is a
>WT: is a good one.
>

	We are having trouble finding a good candidate for the number.
We could say the squark-gluino mass limit from the N2->gamma N1 model,
but it is not really useful until you understand all the assumptions 
in the model, and even then it is a demonstration model.
        Another choice would be the cross section limit on sigma*BR*epsilon*A
for events with met>40.  That isn't really attractive either, you would 
need "For events with a photon with Et> 25 and eta<1, and a b-quark tagged 
jet with Et>30 and eta<2, and met>40 we find the product of the cross 
section, branching ratio, efficiency and acceptance is less than x pb."
Which is also not a very immediatly useful number outside of the context.
       We're still open to the question, do you favor one of these?

> 
> >2) When you quote a second paper by the same authors you should include
> >the authors name again. cf. 1 and 11.
> 
>      A quick check of the style page on
> http://publish.aps.org/STYLE/ms.html#citations
> for two sources confirms that what we have done is correct.
>
>WT: mea culpa. But were [1] and [11] "wrong" according to the PRD style?
> 
  The wording I think was correct for both, but both also had 
punctuation typos - there should a semi-colon between papers and 
period at end.

> >5) Couldn't ref 15 just be a footnote, or better yet included in the text?
> 
>     Please grant us this style point. (see the CDF guidelines for godparenting)
>
>WT: Fortunately these guidelines only apply to godparents ... just kidding