Re: MuCap teleconference reminder. Tues., Dec 5, 11:30am-1pm (CDT),217-265-9888

[Claude Petitjean <claude.petitjean@psi.ch>]

Dear Tom,

I cannot participate on todays teleconf since I'm not at PSI nor home.
But I read your report and give here my personal opinion on your questions.
Of course, in general, I think you have done an excellent job! 
Congratulations.

1) Which of the 4 Lambda_S to take?

I cleary favor those 2 with impact cut, because the others have larger 
accidentals
and more uncertainty of unknown background effects.
Since we have no good argument whether to prefer cath-OR or cath-AND, I 
would
average it. But I see no reason to inflate the error due to this.

2) I agree with your choice of w_N and w_O and the error bars attributed

3)  I agree with your chosen pmup numbers, but I'm hesitating whether the
errors to lambda_pmup(Ortho) and lambda_op need not to be chosen more
conservatively (i.e. larger).

4) asymmetric mc computed high-Z correction curve:
I see 2 possible ways: a) take the average of all points
                                  b) take the middle of the half-max values.
(I done care which one is chosen)

Thats my contribution to todays discussion

With best regards

Claude




Tom Banks wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>I have written a short report summarizing my Run8 results for Lambda_S,
>which have been updated (slightly) since the October unblinding meeting.
>The report can be found at the following location on my analysis page:
>
>  http://weak0.physics.berkeley.edu/weakint/research/muons/private/tbanks_dir/Documents/UCB-Run8-updated-results.pdf
>
>Wherever possible, I have explicitly indicated the numbers and errors I
>used as inputs, in order to facilitate critical scrutiny by the
>collaboration.  Owing to the outstanding questions regarding impact cut
>and eDetector treatment effects, I present four results which must
>eventually be reconciled.
>
>Regards,
>Tom
>  
>