GSI Forum: Analysis » [FIXED] why is total energyloss always too small?

Home » PANDA » PandaRoot » Analysis » [FIXED] why is total energyloss always too small?

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

[FIXED] why is total energyloss always too small? [message #15035]

Mon, 29 July 2013 16:12

Prometeusz Jasinski
Messages: 34
Registered: January 2012

continuous participant

From: *kph.uni-mainz.de

We tried to stop electrons in Silicon active material. The total energyloss calculated by the PandaSDS classes for the mctracks gives always about 300 keV to less, regardless if only one process happened or several.

Momentum [MeV] Eloss [MeV]
0.5 0.203
1 0.6119
2 1.553
3 2.532
4 3.521
5 4.515

Numbers are sharp, not distributed. What did I miss?

Neutrons are even not recognized.

The lower cut was already reduced in the corresponding macro.

[Updated on: Wed, 31 July 2013 08:18] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Re: why is total energyloss always too small? [message #15039 is a reply to message #15035]

Tue, 30 July 2013 09:49

StefanoSpataro
Messages: 2736
Registered: June 2005
Location: Torino

first-grade participant

From: 2.235.190*

Could you please attach the code you used? So that it is possible to check.
Have you compared Geant3 and Geant4, and also to disable the special cuts?

Report message to a moderator

Re: why is total energyloss always too small? [message #15041 is a reply to message #15035]

Tue, 30 July 2013 11:33

Prometeusz Jasinski
Messages: 34
Registered: January 2012

continuous participant

From: *kph.uni-mainz.de

Sure thing. So it is nothing obvious like momentum must not correspond to total energyloss, or so. I attached the code by my bachelor student.

As far as I remember Geant3 and Geant4 gave very similar results for protons. Electrons we did not test yet with Geant3.

How do I disable special cuts?

Attachment: RadiationAnalysis.cxx
(Size: 4.85KB, Downloaded 280 times)

[Updated on: Tue, 30 July 2013 11:39]

Report message to a moderator

Re: why is total energyloss always too small? [message #15042 is a reply to message #15041]

Tue, 30 July 2013 11:37

Prometeusz Jasinski
Messages: 34
Registered: January 2012

continuous participant

From: *kph.uni-mainz.de

And I just realized that he fills the histogram with "Eventeloss" for each eloss step and not each event. But at the end it is regardless, since we looked on the maximum bin entry only.

Report message to a moderator

Re: why is total energyloss always too small? [message #15043 is a reply to message #15042]

Tue, 30 July 2013 13:48

Prometeusz Jasinski
Messages: 34
Registered: January 2012

continuous participant

From: *kph.uni-mainz.de

Ok, found my own thought mistake:

m**2 = E**2 - p**2

=> Edep = E - E_mass_at_rest = sqrt(m**2+p**2)-m

with all the c's missing, so inserting masses and energies in MeV directly.

Gives the missing value in Edep. Nether thought about this before.

Thanks for your time

[Updated on: Tue, 30 July 2013 13:50]

Report message to a moderator

Re: why is total energyloss always too small? [message #15047 is a reply to message #15043]

Tue, 30 July 2013 15:33

StefanoSpataro
Messages: 2736
Registered: June 2005
Location: Torino

first-grade participant

From: 91.252.168*

Hi,
I suppose the problem is fixed now.
However, if you check gconfig/g3Config.c g4Config.C you can disable SpecialCuts. In the file SetCuts.C you can change the selections.in the past electrons where producing different results with g3 and g4.
Now it should be fixed.

Report message to a moderator

Re: why is total energyloss always too small? [message #15060 is a reply to message #15047]

Wed, 31 July 2013 08:16

Prometeusz Jasinski
Messages: 34
Registered: January 2012

continuous participant

From: *kph.uni-mainz.de

Yes, the mistake is found. Thank you for your efforts anyway.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Updated Rho Tutorial
Next Topic:	PndKinVtxFitter Resoultion

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Fri Nov 22 09:34:45 CET 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00676 seconds