 |
 |
Sorry for having sent again and again the same email. The problem is now solved. Cheers, Heiko On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Heiko Lacker wrote: > 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] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >