Measurements of transverse energy distributions in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(sNN)=200 GeV
J. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. C. 70 , 054907 (2004).

Figure 1: Minimum Ionizing Particle(MIP) Spectrum

Typical MIP spectrum. The hits correspond to isolated tracks with p>1.25 GeV/c which project to EMC towers. The peak corresponds to the energy deposited by non-showering hadrons (MIP peak).
Click here for the table

Figure 2: p/Etower Spectrum

p/Etower spectrum for electron candidates, selected through dE/dx from the TPC, with 1.5 < p < 5.0 GeV/x. A well defined electron peak is observed. The dashed line corresponds to the hadronic background in the dE/dx-identified electron sample.
Click here for the table

Figure 3: p/Etower electron peak  position vs d and electron energy vs p inthe center of the tower

Upper plot: points are measured p/Etower electron peak position as a function of the distance to the center of the tower. The solid line is from a calculation based on a full GEANT simulation of the detector response to electrons. Lower plot: points show measured energy deposited by electrons in the tower as a function of the momentum for distances to the center of the tower smaller than 2.0 cm. The first point is the electron equivalent energy of the minimum ionizing particles. The solid line is a second order polynomial fit of the data.
Click here for the table

Figure 4: Energy Deposited by hadrons on EMC from GEANT simulations for different particles

Mean values from GEANT simulations of the energy deposited in the EMC by various hadronic species as a function of momentum.
Click here for the table

Figure 5: Energy Deposited by hadrons on EMC - comparison between experimental and simulated profiles

Spatial profiles of energy deposition in the EMC as a function of distance (d) from the hit point to the center of the tower for π+ and π- from simulations and for positive and negative hadrons from data. The arrow indicates the distance corresponding to the border of a tower in 0 < η < 0.2. An overall agreement between the shapes of the profiles is observed, with a small normalization difference (see text).
Click here for the table

Figure 6: Event-by-Event Electromagnetic Transverse Energy Distribution

Upper panel - Event-by-event ratio of the reconstructed electromagnetic energy and the input from the event generator as a function of the raw energy measured by the EMC. At 150 GeV, count numbers vary from 10 to 40 counts from the outer to the inner contour lines in steps of ~ 10 counts. Lower panel - The same ratio distribution for the most central events. The solid line is a gaussian fit.
Click here for the table

Figure 7: Transverse Energy Distributions

Total Transverse Energy for 0 < η < 1. The minimum bias distribution is presented as well as the distributions for the different centrality bins. The shaded area corresponds to the 5% most central bin. The main axis scale corresponds to the ET measured in the detector acceptance and the bottom axis is corrected to represent the extrapolation to full azimuthal acceptance.
Click here for the table

Figure 8: ET per participant pair vs number of participants

dET/dη per Npart pair vs. Npart. Upper panel: Npart is obtained from Monte Carlo Glauber calculations. The lines show calculations using the HIJING model, the EKRT saturation model (dotted) and the two component fit (dashed, see text). Results from WA98 and PHENIX are also shown. The grey bands correspond to overall systematic uncertainties, independent of Npart. Error bars are the quadrature sum of the errors on the measurements and the uncertainties on Npart calculation. Lower panel: the same data are shown as in the upper panel but using and Optical Glauber model calculation for Npart. The line shows the same result from EKRT model calculation.
Click here for the table

Figure 9: ET per participant pair vs CM energy

dET/dy per Npart pair vs sqrt(sNN) for central events. In this figure dET/dy is seen to grow logarithmicaly with sqrt(sNN). The error bar in the STAR point represents the total systematic uncertainty. The solid line is a EKRT model prediction, corrected for dη/dy, for central Au+Au collisions.
Click here for the table

Figure 10: ET per charged particle and mean pT vs number of participants

Upper panel - dET/dη / dNch/dη vs Npart. Predictions from HIJING simulations for Au+Au at 200 GeV are presented. Results from WA98 and PHENIX are also shown. The grey band corresponds to an overall normalization uncertainty for the STAR measurement. Bottom panel - Charged hadrons mean transverse momentum as a function of Npart.
Click here for the table

Figure 11: ET per charged particle vs CM energy

dET/dη / dNch/dη vs sqrt(sNN) for central events. The error bar in the STAR point corresponds to the systematic uncertaintiy. A constant value of ~ 800 MeV per charged particle, within errors, characterizes transverse energy production over this full energy range.
Click here for the table

Figure 12: Electromagnetic to Total ET ratio vs CM energy

Energy dependence of the electromagnetic fraction of the transverse energy for a number of systems spanning SPS to RHIC energy for central events.
Click here for the table

Figure 13: Electromagnetic to Total ET ratio vs number of participants

Participant number dependence of the electromagnetic fraction of the total transverse energy. The results are consistent with HIJING within errors over the full centrality range.
Click here for the table