🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug11.070321.5126@cco.caltech.edu> brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm) writes:
>
>The new SAGE result is: 50 SNU in '91, 85 SNU in '92, 58 (+7 -24) overall.
>One is tempted to throw out the '91 data, but there's no justification.

I thought the first results were <70 and consistent with zero? 

Interesting that the "92" data agree *very* well with GALLEX result. 

(For those interested, GALLEX data and speculations are published in 
a pair of papers at the back of the 16 July Phys.Lett.B 285,376.) 

Another interpretation is that they will agree with theory if we 
just wait another year ;-)

>Combining all SAGE + GALLEX gives 56 (+12 -13), compared to 132 (theory).

I am not sure you should combine the 2 SAGE and 1 GALLEX results with 
equal weight to each since the run times and fiducial masses are not 
identical.  I am just happy to see that SAGE got a non-zero result!

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)