Re: qm proc again

From: Djamel Ouerdane (ouerdane@nbi.dk)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 03:31:46 EST

  • Next message: Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje: "Re: qm proc again"
    Hi Dieter and others,
    
    Thanks for the comments.
    
    I cannot tell more about the K/pi ratio. This is what we got so far after 
    checks and rechecks and it is preliminary. We anyway are consistent with 
    STAR considering the systematic errors and STAR could also be off (why us?)
    But we are refining the analysis.
    
    Concerning the (according to me) important point you make about the 
    physics issues, I always had in mind that it was somehow missing but it is 
    due to a lack of space. I was thinking about dropping Fig 1 and give more 
    space for a short discussion at the end.
    
    What does the collab think about that ? fig.1 is cool but is it more 
    important than this missing discussion ?
    
    Djam
    
    -- 
    Djamel Ouerdane ------------------------------------------o
    |  Niels Bohr Institute      |  Home:                     |
    |  Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Ø |  Jagtvej 141 2D,           |
    |  Fax: +45 35 32 50 16      |  DK-2200 Copenhagen N      |
    |  Tel: +45 35 32 52 69      |  +45 35 86 19 74           |
    |                  http://www.nbi.dk/~ouerdane            |
    |                  ouerdane@nbi.dk                        |
    o---------------------------------------------------------o
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 22 2002 - 03:38:25 EST