Hi Wolfgang,

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Wolfgang Menges wrote:

> Hi Concezio,
> 
> Concezio Bozzi wrote:
> 
> > At this point I am puzzled, and tempted to drop SP5 completely since it
> > seems that the effect due to D** is bigger than any detector-conditions
> > effect. 
> 
> I think this is the wrong way to go. You have to write this down and 
> everybody will asked why you do this. And it means that we don't 
> understand the D**.
> 
>  > Or we could have a other/vcb ratio which depends on run period
> > (not easy to implement in VVF), or fit the run periods and combine the
> > results (we lose some statistical power due to the mES fits on data). 
> > Any opinions? 
> 
> There are two ways out. Either we switch to release 18 MC/SP8 which will 
> have better D** description, better other things, but we have to adjust
> a lot of (more or less hard) coded numbers. But it will also solve the 
> SP5/SP6 difference for the signal MC. We have to calculate new weights 
> and magic factors. The other way is to apply some reweigting for SP5 to 
> get the same as SP6.
This is in principle not possible as there are D** mass regions in
SP6 which have not been populated in SP5 :-(

Cheers,
Heiko

> Kerstin, haven't you produced something for this? Which we are not using 
> at the moment?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 	Wolfgang
> 
>