 |
 |
Hi ric, > - please add 'DEPLETED' to the bottom table (formal, but relevant > detail...) done > - electrons on depleted are only 1.5 sigma from the enriched > measurement(6.8+/-3.1% as opposed to 1.9%) well, this is right. My message was 'before we had 3.0 +- 1.9 % and now 4.4 +- 1.9 % (total)'. > - I would say that the only error that looks astray is the > Bch-depleted, since in all other cases the average of the susbsamples > seems to have the right error (did not check central values) Yes it is > - for the next iteration, is it possible to have signal > expectations on the vcb subtracted plot also for the multiplicity fit? Yes, I am going to implement this. Daniele > ciao > ric > > On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Daniele del Re wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > here two tables with the new results and plots > > > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/newres.html > > > > My comments: > > > > 1) fits on superblocks are closer now > > 2) ele went up, muon went down > > 3) I am just noticing that only run2 has the excess at 1.5 GeV... > > 4) multiplicity fit is now very close to the default result > > 5) all depleted fit are a bit higher (and electrons have a two sigmas > > effect) > > 6) depleted error have some strange behaviour > > > > > > Daniele > > >