Chi, great job compiling this list. Here are my replies and additions:
zhangchi wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I d like to put forward a list of remaining tasks in software. I want to
>do so because a lot of them require interaction between us earthy
>programmers and people in verious groups of the experment. Please take a
>look and give your suggestion for solutions and/or make additions to the
>list:
>
>1. blast.sc_cal: I am personally very excited about the calibration Pete
>put out. In the mean time, i have the following questions:
> adc pedestals: Adrian knows them by heart but unfortunately, they are
> not written into blast.sc_cal. It is partly because, I guess, Pete
> generates tdc offsets by program which does not know about
> pedestals.
>
> other parameters in blast.sc_cal: speed of light in scintillator,
> tdc/adc scales. Do we have any interest in calibrate those? seems
> we can well get away with the current dummy values. Also, though
> we do need the 50ps/channel conversion for tdc, do we really need
> the 50fC/channel conversion for adc?
>
>
We need to make sure that both speed of light and the scales for
tdcs are the same in BlastLib and blastmc since this is the way
neutron's energy is reconstructed/constructed
>2. interface to NC/LADS calibration: soon NC/LADS tdc/adc will be
>calibrated, and we need an interface to feed them into the library.
>extending blast.sc_cal seems to be a valid option but we do need to see
>what Pete have to say since it is his little baby.
>
What's more important is the relative timing between TOFs and
NC/LADS to get a proper neutron time of flight. Relying on "fast gamma"
in opinion is a loosing cause.
>
>3. LADS recon. I told Vitaliy I was gonna try to look into it during the
>holiday but I lied, or I did not have a chance. I guess I am still suppose
>to do it. basically, charged particles punch TOF and get into LADS will
>generate hits and these hits could be geometrically identified as
>generated by the charged particle. The LADS hits left will be candidates
>for Neutrons but one need to be care for do not create two neutron tracks
>when only on neutrons hit both NC and LADS.
>
>
Where is the holliday spirit. Can you add putting LADS into nsed.
The geometry file is ready so I think that it should be easy to do.
How about this definition for a neutron :
(!TOF) && (LADS || NC). I think that is as simple as that. Only one
question: have we comletely given up on all three particles detected in
BLAST acceptance.
>9. (a little off the line) radiative correction in generators.
>
>
I started looking at that. I read Plaster's theses and there they
simply did an elastic N(e,e'N) reaction radiative correction, based on
POLRAD, that Chris knows a lot about. The question is whether this
would be sufficient for our quasielastic reaction, since in our low q^2
kinematics we hardly have quasielastic reaction. Secondly, I wonder how
large this correction would be in first place. Plaster quotes something
like: ~1.9%, ~3.7%, ~4.4% difference in polarization measurements for
Q^2 = 0.447, 1.132, 1.450 . Shouldn't it be even lower at our Q^2s?
Cheers, Vitaliy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:30 EST