[Clas12_verystrange] REC_ForwardTagger

[dugger at jlab.org]

Derek,

I think that helps make some sense of the REC_ForwardTagger bank. I did
not know we had two kinds of detectors in the bank. I'm still learning.

Thanks for the information :)

Take care,
Michael

> Hi Mike,
>
>  Â  The information in REC_ForwardTagger contains both FTCAL and FTHODO
> events so you should check the REC_ForwardTagger_detector bank: =10 =>
> CAL ; =11 =>HODO.
>
>  Â  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.
>
>  Â  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:
>>
>> Â Â Â  ftJ = 0;
>>     ftEnergy  = myTree.REC_ForwardTagger_energy->at(ftJ);
>>     ftTime    = myTree.REC_ForwardTagger_time->at(ftJ);
>> Â Â Â  ftXÂ  = myTree.REC_ForwardTagger_x->at(ftJ);
>> Â Â Â  ftYÂ  = myTree.REC_ForwardTagger_y->at(ftJ);
>> Â Â Â  ftZÂ  = myTree.REC_ForwardTagger_z->at(ftJ);
>> Â Â Â  ftLÂ  = sqrt(pow(ftX,2) + pow(ftY,2) + pow(ftZ,2));
>> Â Â Â  ftCx = ftX/ftL;
>> Â Â Â  ftCy = ftY/ftL;
>> Â Â Â  ftCz = ftZ/ftL;
>>
>> For the time-of-flight I use:
>>
>> Â Â Â  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange
>