Re: QM proc

From: Djamel Ouerdane (ouerdane@nbi.dk)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 03:18:19 EST

Next message: Djamel Ouerdane: "qm proc again"

Previous message: Flemming Videbaek: "Re: QM proc"
In reply to: Flemming Videbaek: "Re: QM proc"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Ciao Flemming,


> I belive we agreed that you should only
> quote in tabular form the K and pi yield while

It was not clear to me so I just let these numbers in. I will remove them 
and cite JH.

> I think the #'s you give (but should omit for p/p-bar) are
> identical at the level of accuracy. Do your value used for the plot truncate
> to 20 and 21 rather than the decimal value JH gives ? The inverse slopes are
> certainly the same.

Yes, they do truncate, otherwise, we pretty much agree (since JH's numbers
were very close too mine, I put his numbers into my proc.) at least for
the forward. The y = 0 stuff slightly differs from Peter's latest
estimation. I think it has to do with some normalization (magnet 
fiducial cut at the acceptance map level).


Djam

Next message: Djamel Ouerdane: "qm proc again"
Previous message: Flemming Videbaek: "Re: QM proc"
In reply to: Flemming Videbaek: "Re: QM proc"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 20 2002 - 03:19:29 EST