Re: comparison of run8 results

[Tom Banks <tbanks@socrates.berkeley.edu>]

Dear Claude,

we are on the same wavelength: Last night I wrote an addendum to my report
(Appendix E.4, p.86) which contains a table with a side-by-side comparison
of my and Steve's reported results.  It looks essentially like your
comparison below, although not as detailed.  I will try to incorporate
some of your additional fields into my table so that we can have a good
reference for the meeting.

Regarding some of your questions:

> - Steve sees less mu-scatters, but this may be due to a different
>   track finding algorithm

Steve's scatters-removed rate shift is definitely smaller in magnitude
than mine (-1.1 Hz vs. -3.1), but it's difficult to compare our results
until I know his identified scatter fraction.  It could be that our rate
shifts are consistent if we normalize to the same scatter fraction.

> 7) cosmics errors adjusted              -3.1            (-0.2 incl in 1)
>     (n.a.)
> - why is the adjustment of cosmics error so different? Needs to be
>    discussed

There is actually not a problem here; I'm afraid that my report was a
little misleading in this respect, for the following reason: In my last
production analysis, I formed the cosmics lifetime histogram using the
data set in which scatters had been removed.  Thus the -3.1 shift which
you are attributing to the cosmic error adjustment is actually due to the
removal of muon scatters.  As I mention in the text, adjusting the bin
errors to account for cosmics has almost no effect on the decay rate, but
produces a dramatic improvement in the chi2 of the fit.  Steve has seen
essentially the same behavior.

Most of your other questions will have to await the meeting.

Regards,
Tom