[Clas12_verystrange] REC_ForwardTagger

[Michael Dugger]

Hi,

I think I found a quick temporary way to get results to look a lot like 
when we used the FT_particles bank

Caveat: This is just a quick fix and a detailed study needs to be made to 
check what is the best way to go forward when using the REC_ForwardTagger.

Perhaps I have some strange bug that makes the method below work. I do not 
know. I just know what I have below gets me results very similar to what I 
had in the past.

It looks like whenever I have more than 2 hits in REC_ForwardTagger, the 
remaining hits are duplicates of the first two. Moreover, the second 
REC_ForwardTagger hit looks like it might be garbage. So just take the 
first hit in the REC_ForwardTagger bank.

Here is how I get the tagger information:

     ftJ = 0;
     ftEnergy  = myTree.REC_ForwardTagger_energy->at(ftJ);
     ftTime    = myTree.REC_ForwardTagger_time->at(ftJ);
     ftX  = myTree.REC_ForwardTagger_x->at(ftJ);
     ftY  = myTree.REC_ForwardTagger_y->at(ftJ);
     ftZ  = myTree.REC_ForwardTagger_z->at(ftJ);
     ftL  = sqrt(pow(ftX,2) + pow(ftY,2) + pow(ftZ,2));
     ftCx = ftX/ftL;
     ftCy = ftY/ftL;
     ftCz = ftZ/ftL;

For the time-of-flight I use:

     deltaT = tofTime - ftTime + 6.4 - vertex.Z()/30.0

That factor of 6.4 is strange, but I have to put that in to get mass 
distributions that look OK :(

Take care,
Michael

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Will Phelps wrote:

> Yeah, I’m not sure who has done in depth studies of the Rec:particle and rec:forwardtagger banks vs the FT:Particles bank. Maybe Raffaella or Nathan can point us in the right direction. Or maybe we’ll have to run our own comparisons.
>
> -Will
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 7:52 PM, Michael Dugger <dugger at jlab.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I do not know what we need :(
>>
>> In the past we have been using the FT_particles and when looking at REC_ForwardTagger, things seem much different. I do not know if things are better or worse if using REC_ForwardTagger.
>>
>> I can say that the duplicates in REC_ForwardTagger are going to make life a bit of a pain.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Michael
>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Will Phelps wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Michael,
>>>
>>> I think we need to include Raffaella and the FT group in our discussions about the banks. I think most people are under the impression that Rec:ForwardTagger and Rec:particles are all you need for the forward tagger. Is this the case?
>>>
>>> -Will
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 7:43 PM, Michael Dugger <dugger at jlab.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Just started looking at REC_ForwardTagger stuff and there is a bunch of duplicate hits.
>>>>
>>>> Here is an example event with 6 hits showing up for TEC_ForwardTagger:
>>>>
>>>> ftTime, ftEnergy = 178.399 , 2.91067
>>>> ftTime, ftEnergy = 180.169 , 5.4406
>>>> ftTime, ftEnergy = 178.399 , 2.91067
>>>> ftTime, ftEnergy = 180.169 , 5.4406
>>>> ftTime, ftEnergy = 178.399 , 2.91067
>>>> ftTime, ftEnergy = 180.169 , 5.4406
>>>>
>>>> As you can see, there is actually only two unique hits!
>>>>
>>>> This looks like it will be pain to sort through :(
>>>>
>>>> Take care,
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
>>>> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
>>> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
>> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange
>