Print

---

>  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
>
>
>