Privacy and Security Notice

Archived Messages for CLAS_GSIM@cebaf.gov: Re: NOSEC "ALL" and NOSEC "(all components)" & NOGEOM

Re: NOSEC "ALL" and NOSEC "(all components)" & NOGEOM

Maurik Holtrop (maurik.holtrop@unh.edu)
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 14:58:43 -0500

JianGuo Zhao wrote:
>
> OK, I did some more tests on the volume OTHE
>
> NOSEC 'OTHE' 2:50/per 100 events
> NOGEOM 'OTHE' 4:16/per 100 events
>
> These results are also repeatable.
>
> It appears that by doing NO SECONDARIES in the other volume (non active volume)
> we can save CPU time by a factor of 3.
>
> I think I need to understand what these OTHE are, how they affect our results
> by doing NOSEC 'OTHE' and why NOGEOM 'OTHE' is not as effective as
> NOGEOM 'OTHE'.
>

NOGEOM 'OTHE' will allow particles to continue, and hit something else,
which costs more cpu cycles.
NOSEC 'OTHE' stops them dead without making secondaries, thus saving CPU.

I want to remind you though that some of these components will directly
influence what the results of the calculations looks like. In the case of
NOGEOM, we'd get particles where they should not be. In the case of NOSEC,
we loose noise that may affect the acceptance also.
We would have to increase the accuracy of these 'speed tests' to get
anything meaningful out. We should have some estimate on how turning any of
these parts affects the ACCEPTANCE we are trying to ultimately calculate.
That's the hard part.

- Maurik