 |
 |
Hi Ric, comparing quite some values (not all, but quite some) between ddecay.table BAD 540v9 Table 16 PDG 2000 PDG 2002 I have the impression that the BAD Table has the PDG 2002 values and the ddecay.table has the PDG 2000 values. I just wonder if there is some reason for this (it does not look like cut and paste errors between the BAD and ddecay.table). Kerstin On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Riccardo Faccini wrote: > the ddecay file is the correct one. The mistakes areincorrect cut and > pastes ... > If you could edit > BAD/note540 we would really be grateful ... alternatively a list of > mistakes you find is welcome > ciao > ric > > ______________________________________________________ > Riccardo Faccini > Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma > tel +39/06/49914798 Fax.: +39/06/4957697 > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini > Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I-00185 Roma Dipartimento di Fisica > > "I don't understand what you say, but I believe I disagree" > > On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Kerstin Tackmann wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > comparing ddecay.table with the table you have in the BAD 540v9 (table 16, > > p.85) I noticed that some of the values do not agree, this occurs for both > > the PDG values and the MC values listed. Have there been changes in the MC > > (and the measured values) since then? > > > > Thanks, > > Kerstin > > > > >