> That is was we had before (unskimmed generic bug free):
> > > 144fb-1 (B0)
> > > 110fb-1 (B+)
Alessio, before you gave us these numbers
114fb-1 (B0)
110fb-1 (B+)
see
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/VUB-RECOIL/archives/vub-recoil.200212/Author/article-3.html
and these numbers are in the BAD (and in my thesis).
Could you please clarify this, once again?
Daniele
> That was the picture of the production as october is concerned (8 of oct
> to be precise).
> Now I see (new unskimmed generic bug free):
> 50fb-1 (B0)
> 42fb-1 (B+)
>
> This means that:
> we have (new SP4 generic MC)
>
> skimmed unskimmed total SP4
> 6 + 144 + 50 200 B0
> 7.6 + 110 + 42 160 B+
>
> Two questions:
> 1) is that what we expect (please concezio can you validate thos numbers?)
> 2) Concezio (again) why there's that discrepancy btw B0 and B+ ?
>
> From the talk linked in the coll meeting agenda
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/BFROOT/www/Organization/CollabMtgs/2002/detDec2002/Mon2/bozzi.pdf
> i see that the number quoted (185 fb-1 overall) is in good agreement with
> what I see... (200+160)/2 .....
>
> I've already started the production of what is missing and I'll keep all
> of you up to date.
>
> Let me know any questions comments.
> Alessio
>
>
>
|