[Halld-cal] forward shower systematics from MC, new timing comparison

[Richard Jones]

Hello Matt,

It is whatever is returned from the method DFCALShower::GetTime().

-Richard Jones

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 3:06 PM Shepherd, Matthew <mashephe at indiana.edu>
wrote:

>
> Richard,
>
> The DFCALShower object (which is stored in REST) does not have a member
> called "shower RF time."  Without more information as to what you are
> plotting, I can't comment on it.
>
> Matt
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Matthew Shepherd, Professor
> Department of Physics, Indiana University, Swain West 265
> 727 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405
>
> Office Phone:  +1 812 856 5808
>
> > On Mar 19, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Richard Jones <richard.t.jones at uconn.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Matt,
> >
> > I don't compute the shower RF time, I just read the value directly from
> the REST event record. I suppose someone else who is the expert on the
> in-memory FcalShower object that holds the corresponding field in its data
> can answer the question as to how it is computed.
> >
> > -Richard J.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:37 PM Shepherd, Matthew <mashephe at indiana.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Richard,
> >
> > Can you explain exactly how you compute the expected RF time for these
> showers?  Specifically, do you extrapolate to the z position recorded in
> the shower or to the front face of the FCAL?
> >
> > The photon should propagate to the (x,y,z) position of the shower at the
> speed of light.  If the evolution of z is not considered, then this will
> produce an apparent time walk with energy.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Matthew Shepherd, Professor
> > Department of Physics, Indiana University, Swain West 265
> > 727 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405
> >
> > Office Phone:  +1 812 856 5808
> >
> > > On Mar 14, 2019, at 12:15 PM, Richard Jones <richard.t.jones at uconn.edu>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have added a side-by-side comparison of the timing (Fcal only for
> the moment) from hdgeant and hdgeant4 to my MC shower systematics study.
> See slide 8 in the attached document, posted to docdb. The agreement
> between the two simulations is acceptable (30ps difference in the fit p0,
> probabably within MC systematics. The primary message of this plot is the
> large time-walk that exists in the simulated shower times after all
> corrections have been applied. This is the time recorded in REST within the
> fcalShower objects.
> > >
> > >
> https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhalldweb.jlab.org%2Fdoc-private%2FDocDB%2FShowDocument%3Fdocid%3D3852&data=02%7C01%7Challd-cal%40jlab.org%7Cc56778c379974fd7cb5008d6ae2e628d%7Cb4d7ee1f4fb34f0690372b5b522042ab%7C1%7C0%7C636887911581112059&sdata=0QgG1m7v2gaBa8A1sEEErKtUW2vBOEByR3eqhDoVvBc%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > -Richard Jones
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Halld-cal mailing list
> > > Halld-cal at jlab.org
> > >
> https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.jlab.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhalld-cal&data=02%7C01%7Challd-cal%40jlab.org%7Cc56778c379974fd7cb5008d6ae2e628d%7Cb4d7ee1f4fb34f0690372b5b522042ab%7C1%7C0%7C636887911581112059&sdata=9n2kzHyB%2FLUubWvv2B5woOZlqpsBk4hlqXTF3%2FLIBgM%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/halld-cal/attachments/20190321/cf732e77/attachment-0001.html>