From celso@lip.pt Thu Jul 7 14:22:00 2011 Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:21:50 +0100 (WEST) From: Celso Franco To: Eva-Maria Kabuss Subject: Re: PACSPIN Dear Eva, I send the talk in the attachment. There were a lot of questions and comments. Most of them were private. I think that the presentation went very well and most people were really interested in the results. I can enumerate some of the questions: - Why don't we use D^{+} in the Open-Charm analysis? - Did we check if we have an asymmetry between D^{0} and \bar{D}^{0}? - What is the difference between the \Delta s result from inlcusive and semi-inclusive asymmetries? Here it was also pointed out that the value of a_{8} we use in the inclusive case may be outdated. Using the new value brings the result on \Delta s + \Delta \bar{s} closer to zero. - There was a big interest in how will we extract the strangeness-to-favoured ratio of the fragmentation functions (in the part were I've discussed the dependence of the semi-inclusive \Delta s in the fragmentation functions). - Why do we show only one point of DG/G for the high-pt low Q^{2} analysis (where we have most of the statistics) and 3 for the high-pt high Q^{2}? Here there were more detailed questions in how we extract DG/G from the high-pt analysis. People paid attention to the definition of both asymmetries and wanted to know all details. - There was a tricky private question about high-pt made by Anthony Tomas. He asked about our acceptance for high-pt hadrons. According to him, we can extract DG/G from high-pt analysis if we really access high-pt hadrons: of the order of 3.5 GeV... - There was also a question of why we allways show DG/G instead of DG. - Finally, I was presented with a comment (privately) that I was not able to refute completely. It was made by Mehr Agashyn (I think it writes like this). He said that our dilution factor is wrongly calculated. He said also that he is an expert on dilution factor and that he discussed several times with the COMPASS people responsible for this calculations. According to him there are some important hadronic x-sections that we do not take into account. The impact in our proton data, for example, can be large (raising it from 16% to a much larger number, e.g. 60%). I don't know if this was discussed already inside COMPASS. He said that he claimed this several times on conferences. If you want, I can give you his contact. Best regards, Celso