> > That is was we had before (unskimmed generic bug free):
> > > > 144fb-1 (B0)
> > > > 110fb-1 (B+)
>
> Alessio, before you gave us these numbers
>
Right numbers are those ones:
> 114fb-1 (B0) (unsk generic new bb)
> 110fb-1 (B+) (unsk generic new bb)
>
> see
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/VUB-RECOIL/archives/vub-recoil.200212/Author/article-3.html
>
those ones were wrong (I've added B0 and B+ statistics (calculated
in the wrong way :1Mev = 1fb-1 instead of
multiplying each one by a factor of 2 (1Mev = 2fb-1) without adding
them (B0 +B+ != All B)!!!!)
> and these numbers are in the BAD (and in my thesis).
>
> Could you please clarify this, once again?
>
Is that clear enough (I know we've discussed it 10000 times and I'm
sorry for the mess created in the past..)?
Alessio
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|