[Clas12_verystrange] REC_ForwardTagger

[Derek Glazier]

Hi Mike,

   The information in REC_ForwardTagger contains both FTCAL and FTHODO 
events so you should check the REC_ForwardTagger_detector bank: =10 => 
CAL ; =11 =>HODO.

   Saying that there is still a bug or two I think. I previously 
reported that for a given event regardless of the number of 
ForwardTagger hits pindex is always the same so only 1 FT REC::Particle  
gets an assigned time etc.

   The factor 6.4 may be to do with a units change, the hit positions 
are now given in cms.

Cheers

Derek


On 07/09/18 02:55, Michael Dugger wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_verystrange/attachments/20180907/d40dd53d/attachment-0002.html>