Hi,

there is one point to consider though: it is well possible that the 
theoretical error will go down in the future such that the total 
error would be smaller at e.g. 1.625. Therefore this conclusion is
a moving target.

Cheers,
Heiko


On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Wolfgang Menges wrote:

> Hi Bob,
> 
> 	we discussed this issue a bit after the AWG reading. We want to quote 
> only the number for one Mx cut, which will be 1.55 GeV. We calculated 
> all systematics for two other cuts, 1.625 and 1.7. The result at 1.55 is 
> the best in total error. The numbers are in the appendix of our support BAD.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 	Wolfgang
> 
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > One question that doesn't appear in the outline: for which cuts on Mx will
> > we show results?  In particular, how high in Mx do you plan to go?  Urs,
> > Rolf and Ed went to 2.5 GeV using Run 1-2 only; will you go this high?  If
> > not, why not?  Sorry if this question already has an obvious answer; I
> > hvaen't been following this closely.
> > 
> > Bob
> > 
> > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Jochen Dingfelder wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Heiko et al.:
> >>
> >> Thanks for informing us about your target time schedule.
> >> The PAC/DPAC were hoping to send your analysis to DPF,
> >> i.e. the analysis would have to go to RC by mid-September.
> >> Looking at your schedule this seems unlikely, right?
> >> Could you please confirm? We will then let the PAC know.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jochen
> >>
> >>> here is our publication time schedule:
> >>>
> >>> End of July:  Documentation of new strategy of mES fit into BAD
> >>>               (Antonio & Concezio)
> >>>               Also D** issue?
> >>> August:       Parallel work:
> >>>               * Working on backup solution (Wolfgang)
> >>>                 --> higher purity cut: Old model
> >>>               * New strategy with higher purity cut (Chukwudi)
> >>> CM (Sept.):   Presentation of mES fit strategy
> >>>               Supporting document with fixed mES strategy --> AWG
> >>> End of Sep:   Analysis to RC (fit strategy approved?)
> >>> Beg. of Oct:  If yes: Evaluation of systematics
> >>> Mid of  Oct:  Paper draft to RC and then to CWR
> >>>
> >>> Our attempt to find a new well-controlled mES fit strategy
> >>> despite a lot of work has not converged to a stable version
> >>> yet. We suspect that we are suffering from the low purity.
> >>> As a consequence, we will try to understand if we can find
> >>> a stable solution with tighter cuts on purity. In parallel,
> >>> Wolfgang will look into the same direction but try to under-
> >>> stand if we could simply use in this case our old strategy
> >>> as a fall-back solution.
> >>>
> >>> A status report does not seem possbile before the September
> >>> CM due to the August holiday period.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Heiko
> >>>
> >>>
> > 
> > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////
> > / Robert V. Kowalewski            \/  Dept. of Physics and Astronomy \
> > \ particle.phys.uvic.ca/~kowalews /\  University of Victoria         /
> > / Tel:   (250)721-7705            \/  P.O. Box 3055                  \
> > \ Email: [log in to unmask]         /\  Victoria, BC V8W 3P6           /
> > /////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> > 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wolfgang Menges
> Queen Mary, University of London               SLAC, MS 35
> Mile End Road                                  2575 Sand Hill Road
> London, E1 4NS, UK                             Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA
> +44 20 7882 3753                               ++1 650 926 8503
>                                                 [log in to unmask]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>