RE: my fit suggestion

["David W. Hertzog" <hertzog@uiuc.edu>]

Fred,
	These are quite interesting ... and, yes, flat for mu-.  The
difference between you and Steve is rather stunning for the sum.  I also
checked a bunch of individual scans -- same conclusion.  Back at the
meeting, we discussed an "event by event" comparison.  We could cook up
something -- anything -- to test the two processing algorithms.  They
should be different for known reasons but not for unknown reasons.

	Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Gray [mailto:fegray@berkeley.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:22 PM
To: David W. Hertzog
Cc: smclayto@uiuc.edu; kammel@npl.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: my fit suggestion

> 	Since you are an expert, I cc:'d you on this too in case
> Berkeley might find it of interest.  The start time (and stop time)
> scans are rather important.

Hi, Dave et al.,

I have posted my time scan fits of the Berkeley dataset.  Please see
  http://kaon.physics.berkeley.edu/~fegray/mucap/comm-2005-08-18/
In general, I would say that our mu- fits look significantly more stable
than 
the ones that Steve showed on Tuesday, especially for the sum of all
detectors.
The mu+ fits are not yet as stable as the mu-, although they are
improved 
somewhat by a central TPC cut.

> This is really interesting !!

I agree!  We are truly blessed with nice data and fascinating problems.
:-)

Thanks,

-- Fred

-- Fred Gray / Visiting Postdoctoral Researcher                 --
-- Department of Physics / University of California, Berkeley   --
-- fegray@berkeley.edu / phone 510-642-2438 / fax 510-642-9811  --