Ok, it seems that you guys see the same effect.

It would propose that you do the same checks for few other modes and send
an answer to the original David Hutchcroft's posting.
The modes could be:

 -D*pi    (D*->D0 in kpipi0)
 -D*pi    (D*->D0 in k3pi)
 -D*pipi0 (D*->D0 in kpi)
 -D*3pi (D*->D0 in kpi)
 -Dcpi    (Dc in kpipi)
 -D*0pi    (D*0->D0gamma in kpi)
 -D*0pi    (D*0->D0pi0 in kpi)
 -D0pi    (D0 in kpi)

How much statistics is in the two samples? It would be nice to check the
efficiency in the two cases. Jeff sent me a mail. There are few analyses
that see a loss of efficiency of 5% in run4. They would like to have some
kind of feedback also from our sample. Having the change in efficiency for
the modes I listed above would be great.

Let me know,

Daniele

> Mes fits for run 1,2,3 and 4 for the B->D*pi (D*->Dpi) modes can be found
> in
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~henning/plots/
>
>      mean of Gauss in CB fit
> run1   5.27995 +- 0.00005
> run2   5.28002 +- 0.00003
> run3   5.27987 +- 0.00004
> run4   5.27956 +- 0.00003
>
> Generally, our mean values are lower than those reported by David, but the
> mean for the gaussian in the crystal ball fit for run 4 is also somewhat
> lower (0.3-0.4 keV).
>
> In the above place are also plots for deltaE for the same data sample and
> run periods. There is no obvious difference in the mean and rms for the
> different run periods though.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Henning & Clare
>
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Daniele DelRe wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >  we should check this also in our run4 ntuples. Henning, could you just
> > look at mes fits for pure modes (D*pi) and compare run 1-3 with run4?
> > Same for deltaE.
> >
> >  Daniele
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:53:24 -0700
> > From: David Hutchcroft  <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Newsgroups: http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/HyperNews/get/DQG.html
> > Subject: Notes on the Mes change over Run 4
> >
> > *** Discussion title: Data Quality Group
> > Email replies to [log in to unmask] must include:
> >   In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >   Subject: ...change this to be about your reply.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >  There was a significant although small change of Mes over run4. I gave
> > a presenation to the BaBar-PEPII liason group about this. The data is
> > very inconsistent and does not suggest either the beam energies were
> > wrong or were recored wrongly. This becomes confusing.
> >
> >  Please see the talk attached to the DQG page:
> > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/BFROOT/www/Computing/DataQuality/
> >
> >  David
> >
> > --
> > David Hutchcroft                   SLAC Room 253 Bldg 48
> > [log in to unmask]           Tel: +1 650 926 2432
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Henning Flaecher                                               |
> | Physics Department           [log in to unmask]           |
> | Royal Holloway               Phone: +44 (0)1784 443479         |
> | University of London         Fax:   +44 (0)1784 472794         |
> | Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK   http://www.pp.rhul.ac.uk/~henning |
> |                                                                |
> | SLAC M/S 35                                                    |
> | 2575 Sand Hill Road          [log in to unmask]         |
> | Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA    Phone: (+1) (650) 926 5269        |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>