Hi ric,
> - please add 'DEPLETED' to the bottom table (formal, but relevant
> detail...)
done
> - electrons on depleted are only 1.5 sigma from the enriched
> measurement(6.8+/-3.1% as opposed to 1.9%)
well, this is right. My message was 'before we had 3.0 +- 1.9 % and now
4.4 +- 1.9 % (total)'.
> - I would say that the only error that looks astray is the
> Bch-depleted, since in all other cases the average of the susbsamples
> seems to have the right error (did not check central values)
Yes it is
> - for the next iteration, is it possible to have signal
> expectations on the vcb subtracted plot also for the multiplicity fit?
Yes, I am going to implement this.
Daniele
> ciao
> ric
>
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Daniele del Re wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > here two tables with the new results and plots
> >
> > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/newres.html
> >
> > My comments:
> >
> > 1) fits on superblocks are closer now
> > 2) ele went up, muon went down
> > 3) I am just noticing that only run2 has the excess at 1.5 GeV...
> > 4) multiplicity fit is now very close to the default result
> > 5) all depleted fit are a bit higher (and electrons have a two sigmas
> > effect)
> > 6) depleted error have some strange behaviour
> >
> >
> > Daniele
> >
>
|