----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen J. Sanders" <ssanders@ku.edu> > Hi, > If you are anxiously awaiting the next draft, you will have to wait just > a little bit longer. In checking the consistency of the numbers, Hiro > discovered that he was taking the ratio of si-only 200GeV data with > si+tile 130 GeV data. Doing this, we can not claim that our systematics > cancel between the two measurements. New figures (and minor text > modifications) are being prepared... > ...steve > Also, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje" <gardhoje@nbi.dk> > ... > 1) I would think that the 14.3% increase in central mult. should not have > the syst. errors on. If only the stat. count that would give us 14% pm 1%. Hi, Steve and JJ, Even we are taking ratios between two measurements by Si only, I don't think we can assume that all systematics cancel out. There are some not so trivial differences between two (130 and 200 GeV) data sets to simply assume they share same systematics. Different beam properties (luminosity, profile...), background (related with beam...), triggers (changes in timing, gain...), vertexing, and so on. One of the indications about the systematics can be differences between two multiplicities measured by Si and Tile. As I understand, the differences for 200 GeV is substantially bigger than what was shown in the130 GeV paper. One can argue that the differences might be from the different background due to different beam condition, or different gain setting/calibrations. In any case, they all contribute to the systematics, which can not be canceled out. JH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Nov 28 2001 - 15:04:54 EST