Re: sno

[Bernhard Lauss <lauss@berkeley.edu>]

dear Peter,

In the recent PRC issue

 Phys. Rev. C 72, 055502 (2005)

page 33 of the paper,

SNO improved to 5.5 experimental error
still much larger thatn 1.1 cross section

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRVCAN000072000005055502000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes&type=ALER


	Bernhard




*******************************************************************
Bernhard Lauss                 E-Mail: lauss@socrates.berkeley.edu
Physics Department
366 LeConte Hall
University of California @ Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720                             Tel: (510)-642 4057
United States                                  Fax: (510)-642 9811
*******************************************************************

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Peter Kammel wrote:

> Dear Fred, dear Bernhard,
>
> MEASUREMENT OF THE TOTAL ACTIVE B-8 SOLAR NEUTRINO FLUX AT THE SUDBURY
> NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY WITH ENHANCED NEUTRAL CURRENT SENSITIVITY.
> By SNO Collaboration (S.N. Ahmed et al.). Sep 2003. 5pp.
> Published in Phys.Rev.Lett.92:181301,2004
> e-Print Archive: nucl-ex/0309004
>
> gives                        NC flux      CC flux
> total exp uncertainty       +-7.3        -4.6,+3.8
> x-section uncertainty       +-1.1        +-1.2
>
> The x-section uncertainty mainly relies on the Kubodera calc using
> the tritium constraint. But the exp uncertainties are significant.
> I don't know if SNO will be able to improve on that.
>
> Regards
>
> Peter
>
>