The next blast analysis meeting will be tomorrow wendsday 08/11 at 10 am.
I think reviewing the montecarlo is a good idea. Montecarlo has been on
the meeting agenda for several weeks now. Many of the general topics
regarding simulations can be found in many thesis (*)
General status of crunching/recrunching should also be discussed.
As with last week, the wch group will instead meet in the
afternoon at 3 pm.
--(*) including mine section 7.4 and 7.6, for the issue of white/full generator and resolution effects)
________________________________________________________________________________ Tancredi Botto, phone: +1-617-253-9204 mobile: +1-978-490-4124 research scientist MIT/Bates, 21 Manning Av Middleton MA, 01949 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, vitaliy ziskin wrote:
> Collegues, > May I take an initiative and propose that we spend a day talking about a > current state of blastmc. There has been a lot of work done and a lot > of work going on. This will give us an opportunity to catch with what > people have done and maybe coordinate our work for the future. > I think that next to getting better wire chamber resolution, getting > blastmc working right is the most important thing for us right now (in > this case I'm mostly talking about DGen). > The meeting could be a pure disscussion or mixture of presentations and > discussions. Possible topics could be: > > 1) Numerical methods in DGen (some disscussion already occured between > certain people) > 2) Crossection weighted vs. white generator > 3) Realistic resolution in blastmc > 4) Neutron efficiency > 5) Asymmetries out of DGen and blastmc (I have been working on this > recently) > 6) Using DGen and blastmc to extract physical observables > 7) Large acceptance and monte carlo, experience from other experiments > > I'm sure I'm missing a some (many) topics. But the bottom line is that > there should be a fruitful discussion as to how we can make blastmc work > for all physics at BLAST. > This is just a suggestion. Let me know what you think. For all the > meeting that we had concerning wire chamber resolution (most important > thing for us right now) we are yet to have a full (or large part of ) > collaboration discussion on blastmc. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:31 EST