Comments at Collab meeting

1) Axe 3(c); use 1.6 degree bins for figure.

done

2) fig 3 - degree symbol

done

3) remove sentence containing "> 200 GeV" from 1 st para of
introduction

Done

4)Elaborate words that describe fig 4. Justify that the emission
is above 100s GeV.

done 

5)Say more about why we have poor energy resolution.
 a) core
 b) energy measured in pond
 c) shower fluctuations

done

6) ref 501 for confirmation of energy scale

done

7) state that differential spectrum used for fig. 4

done

8) Extend spectrum on Figure 4

done

9) Replace instrumental and systematic effects with something 
about  Nhit, Nfit 

This is difficult to do as the reader has not yet heard of any reason
why nfit should be different to nhit. I have added some stuff about
nhit. It looks horrible. It is not clear when we say that the
distributions are consistent with background whether that is a good or
bad thing. Could someone come up with some alternate wording?
Personally I would like to remove this sentence (individual events,
instrumental effects, nfit..) altogether.

10) Merge discussion and conclusion

done

11) Remove statement about new class of grb in the conclusion

done

12) conclusion "rare background fluctuation" add rare

done

13) conclusion "to verify this result" --> make it clear that this result
to be verified is high energy emission, not GRB 970417a

removed 'to verify this result'

14) "systematic error about 30%" add about

done

15) milagrito - remove the word sparse from the description of the 
Milagrito detector.

done

16) Next sentence "simulations show that Milagrito" instead of "milagrito
has"

done

17) Milagrito began taking data december 1999 (not February)

done

***Gus's Comments

>abstract: replace "The analysis is presented and the implications are
>discussed" with a more concrete statement about energy of a few 100 gev
>and z~<0.3

I have no problem with this change, but I think that it might be
controversial, particularly as we have not actually calculated a limit
on redshift or energy.

>Introduction: "Since the discovery..."
> fragment this sentence

I am not sure how to do this.

>p3s1 "At energies greater than 30 GeV...small for *the* satellite  
>based experiments to detect because of their small effective areas
> change *the* to current, remove "because of their small effective
> areas"

Changed the to current.  We think that it is useful to explain to the
reader why the satellite experiments are limited. We have not removed
"because of their small effective areas"

>The Milagrito detector: one photoelectron --> 1/4 photoelectron

It is not really 1/4 pe, as the number of pes is an integer.
The low threshold is roughly set to 1/4 the charge deposited 
by an average 1pe hit. This gives us nearly 100% efficiency for the
detection single pe PMT hits. This is all the reader needs to 
know. If we tell them that we trigger at 1/4 the charge of a
single pe then we would also need to tell them the width of
the single pe peak for the number to have meaning. The 
text was not changed.

> ~300 s-1 --> ~300 Hz

Todd commented that Hz implys periodic data. His suggested
change was adopted. Either is fine with the authors.

>Onservtions and Results:
>Justify use of 45 degree cut.

A theta cut was justified in the text with the statement:
"...because the sensitivity of Milagrito fell rapidly with increasing
zenith angle". The specific cut of 45 deg was not optimized,
but it is the search region used.

> "This radius was derived from the measured angular resolution of 
> Milagrito" add "and the low background"

In this analysis, a fixed binsize was used for all bursts,
and did not vary with background level.

> p2s1 Specify whether we are talking about local or
> celestial coordinates for the background subtraction

I think that this is reasonably clear the way it is. We could
reference Andy's TeV workshop paper to give the reader more details
(this would also go someway towards addressing Todds systematic error
concerns).

>p3 you can't date a reference to a thesis that is not yet written 

People reference works in preparation all the time. Private
communications are referenced. We don't see a problem here.