 |
 |
Sorry, I read 0.016 for the uncertainty for the BF to omega (not eta), I guess 0.0.16 really means 0.16, which seems a lot more reasonable. Kerstin On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, Luth, Vera G. wrote: > Hello Kerstin > the eta, omega and eta' BF and errors appear to be correct, > The best measurements are from BABAR, now published! > > There is a mistake in the HFAG Winter 09 edition, the BF for omega l nu is > given in units of 10^-2, when it should be 10^-4! > > =========================================== > Vera Luth > SLAC - Stanford University, MS 95 > 2575 Sandhill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 > Phone: 001 650 926 2702 Fax: 001 650 926 2657 > =========================================== > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kerstin Tackmann [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 5:22 PM > To: Luth, Vera G. > Cc: vub-recoil > Subject: RE: B->Xulnu BFs > > > Sorry, I just saw something that seems like a typo: The uncertainty on the > BF to eta should be an order of magnitude larger, shouldn't it? > > 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 >> >> >