Hi,
first the ntl=16 thing. I did make the change that when there are more
than 1 tof hit in one side, (ntl set to 16), code over ride the 16 if one
of the hit is linked to WC tracks. ttl, atl and so on are overridden
accordingly. the old ntl=16 setup hardly contain any information anyway.
ep skim is all right with lrd. the thing mess lrd up is the erroneous BATS
info put into DST by codes before v3_3( if I remember the version number
correctly). run lrd as is will generate ep_skim, you need a -ep switch to
turn ep_skim off.
I do not understand the problem Chris reported that there are erroneous
entries in flr where same infor is copied over to following events. I do
not think it is the case for D2 recrunch.
Chi
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Chris Crawford wrote:
> hi adrian,
> i made a mixup when i wrote the new offsets to the database, and
> forgot to add in the offsets from blast.sc_cal~1.15~ from which my own
> offsets were based. therefore, we must do a recrunch, probably from
> dst. perhaps before we do that chi could fix the problem with 'ep_skim'
> in lrd. for the time being he turned it off, since it wansn't working.
> runs were taking 10x longer to crunch with it included.
> --chris
>
> Adrian T Sindile wrote:
>
> > Oops!
> > The first plot should have been the one I am attaching in this
> > message... in my last email, I attached the third plot twice.
> > Sorry about the confusion...
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Adrian T Sindile wrote:
> >
> >> Hi!
> >> I just took a quick look at the newly recrunched H2 data (April,
> >> inbending) - recrunch was finished today, I believe. I am using the
> >> same cuts I used before recrunch - first observation, I am getting
> >> 470K elastic events compared to 514K events for the same range of
> >> runs, same cuts...
> >>
> >> In the first attached plot, I think the TOF hit distribution (for the
> >> selected tracks) looks weird... doesn't it?
> >> In the second plot, something is really bad about the reconstructed
> >> proton mass... especially in the right sector...
> >> The third plot might provide some explanation for this mess(?)... on
> >> the top pictures, you would expect two gaussians (e-p coplanarity).
> >> On the bottom pictures, the slope should be negative, from the same
> >> reason (when an electron hits high a paddle on the left, the
> >> corresponding proton should hit low another paddle on the right)...
> >>
> >> Maybe some definition changed in the reconstruction codes (a plus
> >> sign becoming minus, for example)? Maybe somebody can comment on
> >> these plots? Is everybody seeing what I am seeing?
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Adrian
> >>
> >> -------------------------------
> >> Adrian Sindile
> >> Research Assistant
> >> Nuclear Physics Group
> >> University of New Hampshire
> >> phone: (603)862-1691
> >> FAX: (603)862-2998
> >> email: asindile@alberti.unh.edu
> >> http://einstein.unh.edu/~adrian/
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:31 EST