Hi Peter, > Hi > > I corrected a bug that I myself had introduced. When I copied the offset > stuff from TPM1 I forgot to actually change the placement of tpm2 in > eg_tpm2.F. Now it has been done and I get good agreement when I match > simulated brag data in brat using the geometry database (see > brahms_app/pc_app/brag/digitize for examples). The funny thing was that > when I just used the default geometry in brag for TPM2 and tried to > reconstruct the data using the brat geometry I got sort of the same > strange dAng vs p behavior as is seen in the real data). I also noted that > the padpidtch in brat is 0.39 and 0.40 in TPM1. I seem to recall that 0.39 > is the correct, but could someone tell me ? I am not quite sure what you imply by the statement. Anyhow if you digitize with one geometry and reconstruct with another it is possible to get the dAng mismatches. This can actually be proven semi-analyticaly. If e.g dx (is shifted between actual and used geom you can get this, but then the zero-field runs would NOT align either. On the padpitch value it should be 0.39 - I thought that the digitize read the DetectrorParams which has (or should have) the value 0.39.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Mar 13 2002 - 20:09:31 EST