I read the same thing, and I think you are reading this correctly. In my
opinion we should change this to the Particle Data Group pid, which is
used in the rest of the CLAS codes (eg. SEB), and in the MCTK banks.
Currently GSIM reads and uses the PART bank, but assumes that the pid is
Particle Data Booklet id. If there is a strong opinion that PART should be
GEANT pid, I can fix GSIM accordingly.
I think we should have a discussion about PART, and what should be in it.
I think one of the missing parameters of PART is a t_0 time, or "time
calculated back to the vertex origin." Adding this would allow the
simulation of out of time tracks.
Additionally we could consider uncertainties on the x,y,z,px,py,pz,t_0
quantities.
- Maurik
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurik Holtrop http://www.physics.unh.edu/Maurik
UNH Physics Department tel: (603) 862-2019 | fax: (603) 862-2998
DeMeritt Hall email: maurik.holtrop@unh.edu
Durham, NH 03824 Home:(603) 659-8765
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Lee Cole Smith wrote:
> Question about the PART bank:
>
> The clasbanks.ddl says pid (column 1) of PART is
> particle ID using the GEANT convention. Is this
> correct? Looking at GSIM/kine_mcin.F it appears this
> routine assumes PART/pid is in the PDG convention because
> there is a routine pdg_to_geant before the call to gskine.
> We need to get this cleared up if we are going to use the
> PART bank in both recsis and gsim.
>
> Cole Smith
> cole@apollo.phys.virginia.edu
>