Print

---

> >  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
> >
> >
> >
>
>