PROBLEMS WITH FIGURES:

In reviewing the figures of your paper, we note that the following
changes would be needed in order for your figures to conform to the
style of the Physical Review.  Please check all figures for the
following problems and make appropriate changes in the text of the
paper itself wherever needed for consistency.

Figure(s) [1,3-6,8,10-13,15,19-24,26-32]
          Please remove background grid and/or shading from your figures.

Figure(s) [2,4,12-15]
          Please put units within parentheses and delete commas.

Figure(s) [2,8,13,15,28]
          Please change E1, E2, etc., to power of 10 notation (i.e., 10
          with appropriate superscript).  We do not print computer
          notation.

Figure(s) [2,3,8,13,15,28]
          Please rearrange power of 10 in axis label for clarity:  Either
          (i) place the power of 10 as a factor, without parentheses, in
          front of the axis label quantity, changing the sign of the power
          as needed; or (ii) incorporate the power of 10 in the topmost or
          rightmost number on the scale.  Please refer to the URL
          http://forms.aps.org/author/h18graphaxislbls.pdf for a pictorial
          representation of the preferred forms for axis labels.

Figure(s) [7,9]
          Do not spell out the names of Greek characters; please use the
          Greek letter.

Figure(s) [12]
          Please delete periods, multiplication x's, dots, or other
          multiplication symbols between factors.  We use centered dots
          for inner vector products only.

Figure(s) [16,17]
          Please use small spaces, not hyphens, dots, or other symbols
          between the parts of compound units.  Adjust the text of the
          paper as appropriate.

Figure(s) [18,24]
          Figure sublabels should be printed on the figures.  The
          preferred form is lowercase letters in parentheses:  (a), (b),
          etc.

Figure(s) [20]
          Please insert predecimal zeros (0.1, not .1).

Figure(s) [20,24,25,33]
          Please modify quantities so that superscripts and subscripts are
          set as they would appear in text.  We do not print computer
          notation.  For example, set powers as superscript numbers; do
          not use ^2, **2 etc. for squares of quantities.  Please adjust
          the text of the paper accordingly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

REFEREE A
ZF10007

This paper reports the results of extensive measurements performed at the
Fermilab Tevatron and their phenomenologic interpretation in terms of beam-beam
effects. Although no fundamentally new or unexpected effects are presented, I
think the material is very interesting and will help improving the performance
of the Tevatron and of future hadron colliders.
I therefore recommend this paper for publication in PRST-AB after some
revision.  

In particular, I recommend a complete revision of the English: for
example articles ('the', 'a') are systematically missing, 



'correspondingly' is sometimes used instead of 'respectively', etc.

>>> Fixed.


The substantial number of figures is justified, although the authors may want
to consider dropping Fig. 17, 9, and possibly 8.


I am not sure to understand whether the observed "scallop" effect can be
completely explained by long range beam-beam effects or some additional
mechanism, such as short range wake fields, is still needed to understand the
emittance growth along the antiproton bunch trains shown in Fig. 24. I think
the authors should clarify this point.


Is the radial separation normalized to protons or antiprotons
when the emittances are unequal?


The factor one half for the average over the particle distribution is only
valid for head-on collisions. The factor for long range interactions is one. In
the text this is not clear and misleading, although Eq. (8) is correct.


Fig. 11 indicates a bunch shortening rather than lengthening, as stated in the
first paragraph of section 3. Is this caused by particle losses?


The behaviour of collisions with beams of unequal sizes is
well known since at least 15 years, but a reference to previous
studies is missing. It should also be expected that the mismatch ratio is
important in Eq. (9) and not the antiproton emittance alone. It must be assumed
that the proton emittance is constant
for all measurements in which case it should be given.


What is the mechanism assumed in section 5 to explain that particles with large
longitudinal 'action' are lost more quickly due to beam-beam effects? If it is
the chromatic dependence of the dynamic aperture this should be stated more
clearly.


Concerning the working points: does the integer part of the tunes play a role,
as one might speculate for a global separation scheme? I would also suggest to
improve the caption of Fig. 20 and explain the meaning of the color code.


When the hourglass factor 'decays' due to IBS, is it because
of bunch lengthening or emittance growth?


Concerning the betatron phase adjustment between IP: is it meant to reduce
Resonance Driving Terms or improve the helix, i.e. S?


Some additional editorial comments follow:

A more consistent use of symbols and units in the text and in the figures would
improve the readibility. For example the tune is first denoted by 'Q' and later
by 'nu', 'Store 3717' is followed by 'store #4111', the transverse emittance is
given in pi mm mrad (text and figures) and in pi micrometers in Table 1.

>>> Changed to form 'store #nnnn' in text and captions.
>>> Changed Table 1 to pi mm mrad.
>>> I propose using "nu" for the (fractional) tune.


Powers of 10 in the form 'e32' are not acceptable, in particular since in some
cases a more conventional form is successfully used.

>>> Changed in text, Table 1, captions.  Still need to fix figures.


The figures should be improved: error bars are often missing and the axis
labels lack consistency. For example one can find:
  Time, hrs
  Time [hr]
  Time (hours)
and similarly for the use of seconds, etc. Others examples
  %/hr
  %/hrs
appear also in the text.

>>> Let's agree on using parentheses () around units in the axis labels.
>>> Insert additional whitespace to separate axix title and units.
>>> ...hr, sec, min, %/hr...


In the caption of Fig 3: replace 'acquired from' by 'caused by'.
Also in the caption of Fig 8: 'because of' -> 'caused by'.

>>> Fixed.


In Fig. 10 the units in the figure and the captions are different
or completely missing for the bunch intensity: N0 = 55.7.

>>> The legend is lacking the intensity units.
>>> Normalized intensities were used for the plot to emphasize visually 
>>> the lifetime difference since those bunches have different intensities.
>>> Perhaps we should use a double y-axis?


The term 'Proton Inefficiency' in Fig. 15 should be replaced
by a more conventional form, consistent with the caption.

>>> Changed caption to describe the plotted quantity better.


The definition of 'inefficiency' given in the caption of Fig. 4 is misleading
or wrong: the same bunch intensity before and after a given stage would
correspond to a 100% inefficiency...

>>> Fixed.


The sentence:
"One measurement takes approximately every 20 seconds"
(end of second paragraph, section 4) is not clear.

>>> Changed to "A single measurement can be made in approximately 20 seconds."


I have spotted a few typos:

- 'slew' instead of 'slow' in section 2

>>> 'Slew rate' is the correct term here.  It refers to the maximum |dI/dt| of 
>>> the low-beta quadrupole circuits.


- 'initial luminosities were of in the same range' in Section 5

>>> Changed to '...initial luminosities were similar...'


- 'beam-bean' effects in Section 6

>>> Fixed.


- 'Normilized' in Fig. 11

>>> It's in the figure itself (right axis label)...Vladimir needs to fix.


Table 1 is mentioned after Table 2. It would be better to mention it in section
1.

>>> The referee is mistaken. Table 1 is already first mentioned in the 
>>> last sentence of section 1.


Table 2.1 (mentioned in chapter 2) does not exist.

>>> Fixed.  Table 2.1 is actually Table 2.


I do not understand the '*' in the last row of Table 2. Also the table caption
should explain that 'EoR' means End of Ramp.

>>> Replaced 'EoR' with 'End of Ramp' in the row label.


Reference 12 is inappropriate (private communication by one of the authors).