 |
 |
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] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >