Re: add on

[Brendan Kiburg <kiburg@npl.uiuc.edu>]

I started by trying to correct any grammatical errors/misspellings.  
There were some outstanding issues that I didn't want to just act on.  I 
think that we can probably leave most of them for this document given 
that things seem pretty consistent.

1) The use of we/our .  This is pretty much all over, I've removed some 
of them in spots where every line started "we did this, we did that"; 
but we are pretty much telling them what we did

2) The use of the % symbol instead of the word percent.  I think Dave 
says it should always be written out, but I personally don't think its a 
problem.

3) With respect to your request to look for obvious repetitions:  I 
mentioned earlier that I felt my run9 overview section contained 
restatements of earlier sections, but I wasn't sure what you wanted me 
to remove, as you asked me to tie these ideas together with physics.  I 
tried to repeat as little as possible while emphasizing what I felt the 
motivation for each topic is.

4) Claude mentions what Alvarez muons are in the TPC section.  We can 
add to this here tomorrow.

5) The deuterium diffusion correction is specifically mentioned and I 
tried to clean up the explanation a little bit.  Please let me know if 
I've made it less clear. 

Some specific points/comments
  Section 2 : 3rd paragraph, last line  "an internal collaboration 
consistency check" -- is collaboration necessary.
  Table 2 still missing some elements
  Last paragraph of gas purity section "This sensor reliably tracked 
changes in the system which we performed as systematic checks" ; awkward

I've handed off to Fred now and submitted what I found to cvs.

Best Regards,
Brendan

Peter Kammel wrote:

>Dear Brendan,
>
>Please also look at the consistency:
>
>MuCap             is our standard
>Muon-on-Demand
>subsubsection without numbering
>
>Regards
>
>Peter
>  
>