 |
 |
Great, thanks a lot, Vera! Kerstin On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Luth, Vera G. wrote: > > > Hi Kerstin, > > > > I recently went through the numbers and also made averages for eta l nu and others. The BF all assume isospin holds, so they have been modified from the HG_FAG averages. > > The D** BF still reflect the set that had 1.4% non-resonant decays, > > the newest ones without non-resonant decays are in the presentation I mailed you, > > > > I hope that this helps, > > > > Vera > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > Vera Luth > > SLAC - Stanford University > > 2575 Sandhill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 > > Phone: 650 926 2702 FAX 650 926 2657 > > ============================================ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kerstin Tackmann > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 4:32 PM > To: vub-recoil > Subject: B->Xulnu BFs > > > > > > Dear vub-recoilers, > > > > if I remember correctly, you more-or-less recently updated the weights for > > the B->Xulnu BFs, but the new files do not seem to have made it into cvs > > yet. I am doing the same on my side by going to the HFAG averages for the > > pi, rho, omega and eta' modes, but I am not sure what to use for eta > > (where there are several measurements, but no average from HFAG) and for > > the inclusive BF (I cannot find anything on the HFAG page). > > > > Also, what did you pick for mb and a? B->Xclnu only? B->Xsgamma only? The > > combination? I can basically come up with reasonable justifications for > > either of the choices and am wondering what you decided for. > > > > Thanks much, > > Kerstin > >