Well,
"lr" is not even good for wch eff, since there you a need a tof filter
obvioulsy. This pushes us even more in the direction of having
ntuple data = filtered data only.
I would further suggest to put "all" filtered data in one ntuple
(including single tracks) with some very rough acceptance cuts (i.e. if
particle hits cerenkov then require momentum > 0.25 GeV which makes sense
since e+ bckg fires the cerenkov and our physics is at omega < 0.6 GeV)
-- tancredi
________________________________________________________________________________
Tancredi Botto, phone: +1-617-253-9204 mobile: +1-978-490-4124
research scientist MIT/Bates, 21 Manning Av Middleton MA, 01949
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Michael Kohl wrote:
> To throw in my coin,
>
> > the idea of scratching lr pops up in my mind once every few weeks too.
> > everytime I realize we need that huge monster for WC efficiency purpose.
> > maybe in near future we will sit down and answer this question carefully,
> > then we may only need to generate lr for one in each few runs.
> If wire chamber efficiency is the *only* reason for the existence of lr,
> why don't we generate a smaller ntuple with only those necessary entries
> for TOF and Wch (and discard any BAT, NC, LADS info). This would make
> those files much smaller than lr.
>
> >
> > > one way to cut down on disk space would be to substitute 'flrpm' for
> > > 'flr'. of course, people wanting only one track (inclusive) would have
> > > to make their own filter from 'lr'.
> >
> > Nick may pick on that :)
> Me and probably Vitaliy, too! There is only one charged track for e,e'n
> events!
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:31 EST