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
Hi,
This is exactly why my symetric system is superior to
others even though it is unconventional (or I reversed the
definition of theta and phi).
My theta runs from -Pi to +Pi and phi runs from -Pi/2 to +Pi/2.
Therefore, negative (positive) theta is left (right) sector, and
negative (positvie) phi is bottom (top) half of the chamber.
Just looking at the two angles, you can visualize where the
track is going^;^.
-T
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:29 EST