From: paola sala (paola.sala@cern.ch)
Date: Sun Apr 15 2007 - 10:16:04 CEST
Hi joe
PEATHRESH should be reliable enough
But this does not solve the problem of the kinks,
that should not be there even with the standard physics option.
( I'm still looking at it..)
Paola
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 21:46 -0700, Joseph Comfort wrote:
> I am looking at particle production from 12.9-GeV/c protons incident on a
> Pt target (8 mm diam. by 6 cm long). The Release Notes indicate that the
> card PHYSICS...PEATHRESH is intended to provide better physics, especially
> for thin targets, but is still under development. I have made some
> comparisons with and without the option. Lists of particle productions
> are given below. The number of produced particles with the card is larger,
> for almost every species, that without the card. I do not see a lot of
> difference in, for example, the neutron spectra, but there is some.
>
> My question is whether the PEATHRESH option is sufficiently reliable to
> use for studies of beam lines, detector responses, etc. Initially, the
> flux of particles is not too important, but we will later wish to have
> pretty good estimates of the fluxes (as well as one can manage in the
> absence of a good body of constraining data).
>
> Thank you.
> Joe Comfort
> -------------------------------------
> No PHYSICS...PEATHRESH
> IDpart Number
> gamma 107454
> e+ 3133
> e- 3415
> ntrno 0
> mu+ 38
> mu- 28
> pi0 0
> pi+ 3562
> pi- 2600
> K0L 143
> K+ 237
> K- 67
> n 8890
> p 131225
> pbar 8
> K0S 0
> eta 0
> Lamda 21
> Sig+ 0
> Sig0 0
>
> With PHYSICS...PEATHRESH
> IDpart Number
> gamma 161114
> e+ 4641
> e- 4934
> ntrno 0
> mu+ 50
> mu- 50
> pi0 0
> pi+ 5160
> pi- 3807
> K0L 178
> K+ 318
> K- 62
> n 9608
> p 130250
> pbar 1
> K0S 0
> eta 0
> Lamda 64
> Sig+ 0
> Sig0 0
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sun Apr 15 2007 - 16:54:25 CEST