EXPERT ROOT

In all following figures left colomn of pictures relates to the simulation, right to the experimental data.
For the experimental data several cuts were used:

• triggered by beam trigger (don't forget to multiply obtained number by coefficient 256)
• cut for 8He (provide illustration)
• cut for MWPC time
• all PMT's of ToF fired
• number of clusters in each MWPC plane equal to 1

Top pictures: dE-ToF pictures. To make these distribution matched, one have to use time delay parameter == 68.553 [ns].
Middle pictures: times in first (tF3) ToF plane
Bottom pictures: times in the second (tF5) ToF plane
 

From these pictures it's not clear how to estimate the ToF calibration parameters for simulation
Moreover, time distribution for simulated data are more localised (more narrow peak). Although the value of the beam energy had similar distribution as in experiment. One may see it from the dE-ToF picture.

On the following pictures times from the central telescope, related to tF5,  were compared:

for all pictures related to experimental data, tF5 was increased by delayed coefficient  68.553 ns

for simulated data extra cuts (which were supposed as trigger==1 selection analog) were used:

• number or fired strips in central Si telescope==1
• number of fired crystals>0
• there were no signals in both side telescope

Top pictures: Times for X strips (difference between Sin and Exp data ~40 ns)
Middle pictures: Times for Y Strips  (difference between Sin and Exp data is also ~40 ns)
Bottom pictures: Times for CsI crystalls. I cant compare pictures, for me it is weird.

 

At the following picture times of the CsI crystals with maximum amplitudes are shown (time related to tF5 of course), for sim and exp data.