Hi Patrick,

Of course Tjeerd is the best in answering this. However I think that the extra work in making the detector acceptance more uniform/understanding your detector was one of the contributing factors in this. This claim, like any others in physics, should just be checked by a second experiment.

Cheers, Laurent

On 08 Jun 2016, at 10:21, Patrick Koppenburg patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch wrote:

Hi Niels,

Yes. But that's a strong worry. If an experiment produces flukes that go away and there's no explanation why that happened, my opinion would be to assume the present result is also one.

Cheers,

Patrick

On 08/06/16 10:18, Niels Tuning wrote:

...

Hi Patrick, Gerco,

But the only complaint is that the disappearance of the previous claims from Fokke de Boer at 12 and 13.45 MeV is not explained?

I don't read any strong objections against the present experiment itself? (Apart that they would have wished for a blind analysis?)

Cheers, Niels

--

Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html

---

Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics