hi chi and tancredi,
tancredi: when i say single hit, i mean wire chamber, not tof. i'm
going to finish this calibration today, so if you need to update v2_14
right away, just do 'cvs up -r v2'. i will tag it sometime tonight.
zhangchi wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Chris Crawford wrote:
>
>
>
>>hi chi,
>> with the flasher not being in the center of the tof, the current
>>calibration does not line up the tof's properly. to fix, this, i am
>>fitting the coplanarity peak for each paddle combination, and then will
>>
>>
>
>Hi, this may be dangerous, since the paddles have different distance to
>the beam line, simple ptl+ptr may not be precisely 0. One really has to
>compute phi literally and compare.
>
>
good point. what do, is scale each ptl by the distance of the tof from
the beamline.
>
>You probably is already doing this. So please forgive me if I am only
>bragging.
>
>By the way, Wang mentioned weighing hits differently in Newton fit chi
>squared. although I do not agree with his method to assign weight, I do
>think maybe weighing single hit less than hits in a 2-hit/3-hit stub is
>wise.
>
>
each wire carries its own weight (to automatically implement what wang
is talking about). if there is any reason that one wire is more
accurate than another then we could thow that in as a separate weight.
as for the problem of single hits, in the near future, the newton
fitter will look at how far each wire misses the track, and if a very
small number of wires are way off (probably noise), these will be
rejected in further fitting.
--chris
>Again, a lot of "ideas" flying arround, but they might all just be a
>beautiful dream. :)
>
>Chi
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:29 EST