Hi,
Sorry I did not come to the meeting this morning. But I have voiced my
opinion yesterday when meeting with Tong, Wang and Chris that I am 100%
against using 0-360 degrees.
The -90 to 270 convention has been in use all the past years, and I think
it is the most natural way to present the geometry of Blast detector. By
using 0-360, we are cutting the left sectors into two halves which I think
is looking for trouble. The seeming beauty of the "standard" notation
really do not worth the trouble.
Another reason to use -90 to 270 is: when doing analysis, cut on sectors
will be simply phi<90. while using 0-360, it is a two way comparison.
Chi
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Douglas Hasell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately I have thought of a plausible reason for using the
> range [-90,270) for the azimuthal angle which Chris suggested today.
>
> Something that we might do rather naively for a given track is
> determine its azimuthal angle by taking the average of the azimuthal angles
> for the track segments which make up the track. So if the track segments
> have azimuthal angles 1, 359, 0 for example, then the average (180) clearly
> isn't what we want.
>
> Hopefully people are clever enough to avoid this sort of error but
> I can imagine it slipping through on occasion.
>
> Not saying I'm convinced we should start changing code yet but
> maybe....
>
> Cheers,
> Douglas
>
> 26-415 M.I.T. Tel: +1 617 258 7199
> 77 Massachusetts Avenue Fax: +1 617 258 5440
> Cambridge, MA 02139, USA E-mail: hasell@mit.edu
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:29 EST