Quoting Michael Kohl <kohlm@mit.edu>:
> Hi Eugene, Adrian,
>
> from the recent discussions I think it is clear that one should
> separately
> account for energy loss and for residual kinematic corrections (which
> should then be independent of the PID).
> Although the size of the energy loss correction would be significantly
> smaller than the size of the total kinematic corrections, it is still
> significant as the energy loss piece is PID dependent while "geometry"
> is not.
I didn't know this was desired, otherwise it would have been done.
This is a simple algorithm and I can do this today and compare it to
Aaron's ELoss corrections from one year ago. Considering that the
proton's max ELoss proved to be approx ~5 MeV, these corrections
will be highly insignificant until geometry appropriations are made.
I haven't generated any Deuterium elastic so I can not parameterize
the ELoss of the deuteron.
Residual kinematic corrections should be delayed until geometry
is well-known and final field map includes the proper target field.
> Have you made any progress to parametrize the (average or most probable)
> momentum loss of protons and electrons as a function of reconstructed
> (uncorrected) momentum (and eventually as well as a function of the
> angle
> in case that there is additional dependency)?
If there is theta dependency, I'll include it.
-eugene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:33 EST