[Halld-cal] newest revision of FCAL beam test NIM article

[Kei Moriya]

Hi,

Many thanks to Mark, Elton and others for their careful reading
of the manuscript. I have incorporated most of their
suggestions, although I did change the wording sometimes to my liking.
The newest draft (ver 3) can be found at
http://argus.phys.uregina.ca/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=2183

If there are no more comments or requests, we will submit
this to NIM after further proofreading at IU.

Here are some specific replies to questions that were
raised by Elton:

1. page 2, right column, Fig 3
Note: Thanks for adding the lines for the trigger scintillators. 
Question: Is the lead glass not aligned with the center three paddles? 
If so, does introduce a trigger bias?

The center three paddles are each centered on the border of two
modules. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by trigger bias,
but the spread in incoming energies against position are rather
small (each scintillator is 4cm wide), and effects of multiple
scattering before reaching our detector have a much larger effect
on the differences in incoming energy than geometric effects.

2. Question: Were 20 samples used, or more? You might want to be precise 
for the paper.

I changed the text so that it is clear that the result of optimization
lead to 20 samples used.

3. p 6, right column second par, first sentence, reword

To increase the probability of sampling a single shower, we restrict
the differences to be between adjacent modules,....

I did not put in this change as this implies that there are multiple
showers coming in, whereas the cuts on the triggers ensured that
we only selected events with only one incoming shower.