I some how miss the point, why do you need PART in CELEG?
What is wrong with MCTK?
If some one wants to have information from MCTK in their analyses he can copy
MCTK later on.
I will suggest if you producing new output bank from CELEG do so, fine, just do
not destroy what already working and we know what to do with.
Question you had about decayed particles is actual, I think, JETSET scheme that
is in CELEG and many other P.M.C. codes as well as in GSIM already implemented
in EVNT (the same numbering scheme and so on) and people can directly put the
information from MCTK into it.
Stepan.
> Hi all:
>
> I have a question about the use of the PART bank. When I redid celeg to
> produce it, I simply copied the code that produced the MCTK bank, and
> changed the variables accordingly. It occurs to me that that might not
> have been a good idea.
>
> The reason is that there is no mechanism in the PART bank to tell GSIM
> not to track a particular particle; with the MCTK bank, we have the
> beg_vtx and end_vtx variables; if end_vtx<>0, the particle has decayed,
> and we don't track it. This was done so that we could store all of the
> decay chain within the bos file (except, curiously enough, for the
> original resonance that was generated at the beginning of the event).
>
> Because we don't have this flexibility within the PART bank, it seems to
> me that the logical thing to do is to not store the particles that have
> decayed. It should be simple enough to do, but I wanted to warn
> everyone (and wait for a few return comments) before I did that out of
> hand.
>
> I will still keep the particles in the MCTK bank, because we can still
> make some use of that information.
>
> --
> John Price *** *** *** *** pricej@jlab.org
> Where there is no solution, there is no problem.