<html><head></head><body>I think that the sentiments that Rolf expresses go to the heart of the point that Mark Jones made at the workshop - the most reasonable starting point is probably to "wrap" the Hall C tracking code. <div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>E.</div><div><br><div><div>On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:54 AM, Rolf Ent wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"> - compare track reconstruction event-by-event<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - It would be disconcerting if there are significant differences<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> between what the "Hall A" tracking algorithms generate and what<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> the FORTRAN analyzer ends up with. I would like to think there<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> is minimal special case "magic" in either tracking codes.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Keep in mind that the tracking algorithm for the Hall A HRS has been<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">specifically written for our set of VDCs. I don't think you have VDC <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">reconstruction in your Fortran analyzer, or do you? Even if you do, I do <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">think there may very well be "special case magic". I doubt such a <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">comparison would work out of the box. But yes, we did the same thing,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">we compared Fortran and C++ tracking output in exhaustive detail - after<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">we wrote the C++ tracking code from scratch.<br></blockquote><br> Ole is correct, it is a non-starter to assume the tracking codes<br>will give similar results given that the Hall A setup uses VDCs. Even<br>more, the Hall C tracking analysis has been painstakingly optimized with<br>various "pruning" additions to have a well-known tracking efficiency for<br>very high rates within the spectrometer, with many bells and whistles how<br>to check it. Given this, my point of view would be that the starting<br>point to optimize for the precision L/T program in Hall C should be the<br>robust Hall C tracking algorithm. Maybe one could argue we should update<br>the documentation if for instance Eric Christy's tracking note is not<br>readily accessible, and adding sections from Vladas Tvaskis' thesis.<br>Don Geesaman did a good job doing the initial documentation.<br><br> best regards, Rolf<br>_______________________________________________<br>Shms_users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Shms_users@jlab.org">Shms_users@jlab.org</a><br>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/shms_users<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><i>Dr. Edward J. Brash</i><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Chair, Department of Physics, Computer Science & Engineering<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Christopher Newport University<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">p: 757-594-7451 • f: 757-594-7919<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.cnu.edu/pcs/index.asp">www.cnu.edu/pcs</a> • <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/CNU-PCSE-Department/207472702360">Find us on Facebook</a></p></div><div><br></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br></div></body></html>