hi eugene,
the format is explained in the header of Blast_Params/bgrid2.blast
--hope that helps, chris
Eugene J. Geis wrote:
>The file "Contour Field and Trajectory.png" is an overhead view of the field in
>the ZX BLAST frame. It is a contour map of the field. There is a blue line
>that represents a simulated electron's trajectory that came out of the origin
>at a polar angle of 25 degrees and energy 850 MeV.
>
>The track has been simulated but stepping 1 cm at a time 350 times through the
>field. The file "Electron_Track_Mag.ps" is 2 plots of the deviation of the
>exact same particle, i.e. same initial conditions, at each step in "No
>Shielding" and "Shielding" situations. The deviations plotted are the overall
>magnitude difference of the position at each step and the overall magnitude
>difference of the momentum at each step. The maximum deviation proves to be
>0.16 cm at a point outside the field and approximate 2.3 MeV different at the
>exit from the field. This is well below our extracted offsets and momentum
>resolution.
>
>There are also three plots included which are plots of the Flux Density in the
>Y direction. They are labeled as "Field_to_CC0_Done.ps",
>"Field_to_CC1_Done.ps", and "Field_to_CC2_Done.ps". The fields in these three
>plots have been plotted along a line stretching from the origin to the center of
>the three respective Cerenkov boxes. In each file, there are two plots. The
>plot on the left is a superposition of the field simulations with (in blue) and
>without shielding (in red). On the right, the ratio at accessible bins is
>plotted (Shielded divided by NOT Shielded). The x-axis is the length over the
>path of our plot in centimeters (the path from the origin to the CC box). Some
>of the deviations in the first 100 centimeters of each plot may be results of
>the Finite Element meshing or they may be real. Either way, at the deepest
>center of our field, the ratio never seems to differ by more than 2%. There is
>a consistent dip in each as you approach the CC boxes but the field is rapidly
>approaching zero as this dip becomes more pronounced and this will not affect
>our reconstruction since the electron would have already punched through the
>WC's at this point.
>
>
>In conclusion, TOSCA shows no major deviation that would come close to the
>kinematical problems in reconstruction. Within the first 200 cm's along the
>simulated path of an 850 MeV electron (slightly higher than what is actually
>there, my apologies...), we remain within the width of our 200 micron
>resolution in the WC's.
>
>Michael suggested attempting to corroborate the present field map with new
>TOSCA calculations. I would like to know what the format of the field map is
>and where to find it. I can resume working on something like this in about 3
>weeks when I'm done with the stress of moving and feeling settled back in
>Arizona. That is, as long as Ricardo has purchased the program...
>
>I'm leaving on Monday. Hope to see you all again at the next collaboration
>meeting.
>
>eugene
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eugene Geis
>PhD Student, Physics Department, ASU
>Research Affiliate, MIT-Bates Laboratory of Nuclear Science
>eugene.geis@asu.edu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:32 EST