B. Vallage (26/3/2014)
I have no fundamental remarks, only a minor point which is incorrect and should be modified as follows:
- I propose to rewrite the sentence on line 68-70 as: "The threshold crossing time and time over threshold
(ToT) are digitized by a on-board ns precision time stamping implemented in the readout FPGA (ref 14)."
- the reference cannot be the paper of A. Zwart et al (13), since it has nothing to do (different time
resolution, data format, number of channels) with the implementation in the PPM-DOM and PPM-DU which
is described in reference S. Anvar et al (14).
- I also propose to modify lines 74 and 75 as follows: "The data are transported to the 45 km distant shore
station through the ANTARES Gb/s multiplexed optical link." I removed the 2 references, since (14) describes
the DOM readout already referenced for the time stamping in line 68-70, and (15) which describe the
ANTARES readout which is on purpose completely independent of the DOM readout (different GPS, clock,
network, bootserver, acquisition PCs, etc).
Shebly Anvar
I agree with Bertrand that this is really a great paper. I’ve just noticed a few small mistakes or possible
improvements:
- line 137: it should be “Figure 3C”(not 3B).
- line 193: I think “get less” should be replaced by “decrease” (even if the following sentence begins with
“The decrease”)
- line 263: I think “continues to the present” should be replaced by “is still going on”
H. van Haren
I like the manuscript , it is clearly written presenting very nice (first) results of the KM3NeT-DOM. The
bioluminescence result can be slightly extended with some interpretation, see the suggestion below. As for
the detailed comments, these are mainly textual; in particular the lettering around figures needs some
attention.
l.10: This evidences that most intense deep-sea bioluminescence is caused by fishes and zooplankton, not by
bacterial glow.
l.26: IceCube collaboration  IceCube (Antarctic) collaboration
l.56,57: diameter, housing  diameter, as pressure case housing
l.57: tubes with  tubes ‘PMTs’ with
Figure 2: lettering of axis-labels should be bigger
Figure 2B: the red line is barely visible: please thicken
caption Fig. 2,l.1: Rate  Hit rates
(to be equal to naming in Figure-axis-legend)
caption Fig.2,l.1: ToT  ToT (see text)
caption Fig.2,l.1: long  broad
caption Fig.2,l.4: fit of  fit (red line) of
l.58: mm [1] mm (about 3") [1]
l.60,61: photomultiplier tubes (PMTs)  PMTs
l.78: single sphere  single glass sphere
l.93: site (  site south of Toulon, F (
l.98: define ‘runs’ (?)
l.101: registered ToT  registered hits as a function of ToT
l.104: ns at FWHM  ns FWHM
l.105: ToT caused  ToT broad-peaking around 240 ns caused
l.117: baseline corresponds  baseline of about 250 kHz corresponds
l.128,129: What is meant by this sentence, peaks due to bioluminescence? Please clarify.
Figure 3: Data do not seem to be binned in ~100 ms bins. The variability is much faster than that of the (100
ms) tick-marks. Lettering in insert of A is too small; Y-axis caption of A should read ‘Hits’ for consistency; xaxis of A is ugly, numbers make one long row (decrease lettering?);make z-axis of C longer (or reduce
number of ticks); z-axis legend of C is missing; y-axis legend of C should be bigger and not overwrite
numbers; Please also indicate far end of y-axis of C (+/- 180°?); Please also indicate far end of x-axis of C (40°
?)
Caption Fig.3,l.1: Rates  Hit rates
Caption Fig.3,l.2: why use ‘~’ before 100 ms ? in the text this is not done. What is the exact value?
Caption Fig.3,l.2: hits while  hits summed over all 31 PMTs while
Caption Fig.3,l.9: zenith.  zenith angles.
What is the large value at φ~180°, θ~60°?
Figure 4: Lettering of axes A-D too small
l.137: 3B  3C
l.140: activity is  activity, excitated upon collision of animals mainly advected by currents, is
Figure 5, all y-axis captions: Rate  Hits
Caption Fig.5,l.1: Rates  Sum over all PMTs of hit rates
l.186: mean  total
l.187,188: minutes  min
l.187,188: Figure 5 displays Run nr. 720-1060, which is about 2.2 days of data, not six months.
l.191: full  total
l.194: biolluminescent  bioluminescent
l.194,195: I absolutely do not see a variation from summer through winter in the decrease of levels in Fig.
5A-C!
l.196: instantanious  instantaneous
l.199: This  These
l.204,205: stable.  stable and no bursts due to bioluminescent flashing are observed.
Figure 6: Is there is a specific reason to choose 25h 35 min of data?; Rate  Hits ;
Lettering of inserts is
too small; x-axis of B cannot exist of just one number
Caption Fig.6,l.5,6: centre of the PMT  centre of the DOM (?)
Caption Fig.6,l.10: cylinder.  cylinder.)
l.218: rate is  rate (coincidence level of 1) is
l.235: I don’t understand ‘three twofold coincidences’, but that may be just me.
l.247: (…but perhaps other shadowing effects??)
l.249: phototubes  PMTs
l.251: horizonrally  horizontally
l.256: phototubes  PMTs
l.258: telescope at a depth of around  telescope around
l.262: minutes  min
l.266: activity. The  activity. This supports earlier findings [20,21] that most intense deep-sea
bioluminescence is caused by fishes and zooplankton, not by (omnidirectional) bacterial glow. The
l.285: Detector,Science  Detector, Science
l.294: strange characters before ‘-rays’
l.299: Astrophysical Journal  Astrophys. J.
l.302,303: Astrophysical Journal  Astrophys. J.
l.305: The  the
l.305,306: Instr. and Methods  Instr. Meth.
l.313: (KM3NeT  (on behalf of the KM3NeT
l.305,306: Instr. and Methods  Instr. Meth.
l.314,315: Instr. and Methods  Instr. Meth.
l.322: Instr. and Methods  Instr. Meth.
l.324: Instrum. and Methods  Instr. Meth.
l.327: Calibration  calibration
l.331: Instr. and Methods  Instr. Meth.
Insert suggestion:
20. I. G. Priede et al.; The potential influence of bioluminescence from marine animals on a deep-sea
underwater neutrino telescope array in the Mediterranean sea, Deep-Sea Res. I 55,1474 (2008)
21. H. van Haren et al. (ANTARES-collaboration); Acoustic and optical variations during rapid downward
motion episodes in the deep north-western Mediterranean Sea, Deep-Sea Res. I 58, 875 (2011)
H. Lohner
Dear Paolo, dear PC, dear authors,
thanks for the paper draft of the KM3NeT PPM DOM, which contains very
good results and shows that the multiPMT idea is working nicely.
My comments are included in the annotated pdf file which can be
retrieved by following the instructions below.
Some of you may have received my previous mail with the file attached,
from others I received failure messages, therefore I send the file here
again.
with best regards,
Herbert
Right click on the following URL and
* choose "Save Target As" (Outlook Express)
* choose "Save Link Target" (Thunderbird)
or start your browser and copy and paste the complete URL in the address
or location box.
url : http://bars.rug.nl/download/4e70133622df7a9a
filename: PPMDOM-v11.1-HL.pdf
filesize: 8.4MB
available until: 2014-04-14
E. Anassontzis
TEXT
30: prime  additional
48: KM3NeT predecessor ANTARES [9].  KM3NeT predecessors NESTOR [xxx] and ANTARES [9].
[xxx] G. Aggouras et al., A measurement of the cosmic-ray muon flux with a module of the
NESTOR neutrino telescope, Astroparticle Physics, Vol 23, 377-392, 2005
52: line during deployment line and deployed
54: ANTARES detector [10].  ANTARES detector [10] and data have been already recorded.
58: by a reflector  by a cone-shaped reflector
93: 42° 50 N, 6° 10 E  42° 50’ N, 6° 10’ E
147: by a factor 2.5. To select a  by a factor 2.5. ¶To select a
194: biolluminescent  bioluminescent
255: The new design optical module The new optical module designed
GRAPHS
fig 2. Y axis scale confuses me. We have a rate of 50000 hits per ns??
And I suppose that in the x axis it should be: ToT [ns] instead of ToT/ns
Fig3a: Rate [ns] instead of Rate / ns
SAME CORRECTION TO ALL FIGURES (except 4E, 5, 6A; they are correct)
fig 3A: labels of x axis could be clearly separated
fig3 legend: measured in 100 ns bins.  measured in 100 ns timeframe bins.
A. Belias
Y. Moudden
See file PPMDOM-v11.1-onlyComments-Tassos.pdf
38 - "The neutrino detection is based on sampling of Cherenkov light ..."
-> Neutrino detection is based on sampling the Cherenkov light
49 - "The sampling of Cerenkov light in KM3NET ..."
-> Sampling Cerenkov light in
55 - " Optical Module Design"
-> Digital Optical Module Design
70 - Reference 13 is on its own really not adequate.
Reference 13 should be maintained but reference 14 should appear right beside it.
It would be nice to mention that the TDC has nano second resolution and 31 synchronized
channels.
75 - Reference 15 doesn't seem fit.
To the best of my knowledge, the DOM is completely separated from ANTARES in terms of data
flow.
Adding reference 15 makes it ambiguous so it should be removed.
My feeling is that a sentence somewhat like "A more detailled description of the
DOM electronics and Data acquisition system is given in reference [14]."
96 - commenced
-> began, started ..
106 - "the distribution of the time difference between successive hits .."
-> distribution of time intervals between successive hits
108 - with a slope of \tau
-> with a slope \tau
110 - rate of around
-> rate around
111 - Because of its low repetition frequency of
-> Because of its low 1KHz repetition frequency, the signasl from ..
112 - The increase in the rate ... initial pulse.
147 - "it is enhanced "
-> it is 2.5 times higher
153 - the frmaes. Seawter ...
Isn't this the rigth place for a new paragraph ?
Figure 5 : it would look nicer if all the plots had the same range on the horizontal axes.
159 - "in the water."
in the surrounding water
165 - the reason is that DOM
Missing article.
167 - "where figures 4A-D ..."
where plots A to D show the rates for
186 - "as a function of run"
as a function of run number.
193 - get less
There must be a way to say this better !
194 - biolluminescent
Bioluminescent
196 - instantanious
instantaneous
199 - This curve thus show
-> These plots thus show ..
200 - It is expected completely
-> It is expected to be completely stable ...
203 - One can see that one of the 31 PMTs is inactive about 35 % of the runs.
Some explanation may be needed here : is that to be deduced from the
red dots in 5C gathering along two alomst three nearly horizontal lines ?
247 - incorporating of the
-> incorporating the / accounting for that effect ...
251 -> horizontally
255 - The new design optical module ..
-> The new optical module design
257 - in the deep sea.
-> in deep sea.
258 - connected and continues to the present.
-> connected and is still going on.
268 - These signals will provide a ... in KM3NET.
-> intra DOM timing only. I suppose the array will need more than K40 decay
for synchronization and timing calibration.
Juande Zornoza
l16: muon's -> muon
l21: -when completed- -> I would remove this
l30: prime -> prime additional
l38: sampling of -> sampling the
l43: provides for -> provide
line on corresponding authors: I would put ":" instead of the comma
Fig2: any comment on the first little peak?
Fig2: comment on the red line?
Fig2: quote the error of the tau?
Fig3 A: I would use lines instead of filled areas in the legend
Fig3 A: the numbers on the x-axis are too large
Fig3: caption -> bioluminescent -> bioluminescence (and other cases with "bursts" after)
Fig4 (and others) : sometimes the units appear as "/Hz" and others in brackets.
Fig4 (upper plots): they don't appear in good quality in my version
l136: the cut -> the cut,
l194: biolluminescent -> bioluminescent (remove one l)
Paschal Coyle
(9/4/2014)
Figures need a lot of work
Don't forget the ANTARES acknowledgement
p1...remove 'a' footnote from title
Collaboration with capital 'C'
L38...the Cherenkov light is induced by the passage of the muon, not emitted by the muon
Fig. 1. I attached to this mail a photoshoped version of my photo, in which the cable is removed
FIg 2b....there is a red area on the data points which is not referred to. Remove it or state that the
exponential fit was made on this region
L83...this is a nice opportunity to emphasize ALL the advantages of the multiPMT design...
i.e. directional information, better for ageing, availability of PMTs, cost reduction, less leak points.
Section 4....I think I would explained the K40 origin of the light much earlier than currently.
It is already needed to understand Fig 2, otherwise the reader may think it is all due to dark
current.
I would also state early on the typical dark count of the PMTs (with no light at all).
Fig 3a...the blue curve, seem to have something yellow 1/3rd of the way along?
L135...quote the value of the high rate veto cut (8.5kHz?).
Fig 4....strange having dotted error bars
L137...3C
L147...presumably due to impacts of organisms on the structure or stress induced by turbulence
around the structure
L148...keep to the impersonal tense (no 'we')
L186...205/FIg 5....not sure I really grasp what is the extra information from all this discussion that
has not already been
discussed in the previous plots. It is good to show the DOM has operated for a long period. I expect
the variation will
correlate well with the value of the sea current during the run.
L202...how do I see this?
L207..209....remove, this is obvious
L231...intensity-->rate
L235...do you mean six fold, or have you added a requirement that the two fold coincidence are
physically adjacent ?
Maurizio Spurio
(9/4/2014)
See file PPMDOM-vSM.pdf