This is correct, as far as I recall. Back when the PART bank was first
proposed, I was specifically asked to include it in CELEG, to (I understood
at the time) make it available at all steps of the process. It wasn't hard
to do (once I had the time to do it...), so I did it. I have since
realized that there are differences in teh way that the PART and MCVX/MCTK
banks present the data; this is why I posed the question originally.
For those who weren't paying attention at the beginning:
1. CELEG includes details of the decay chain of the nucleon resonance
generated in the event; it doesn't make sense to me to put this information
into the PART bank, so I proposed removing it from the PART bank only.
2. Stepan misunderstood my possibly poorly-phrased question to indicate
that I was planning to remove *all* of this information, from the MCVX/MCTK
banks as well.
3. Maurik has now observed that one wants to compare the output of CELEG
with the output of RECSIS/a1, bringing the whole exercise into question.
Ah, well. Removing the PART bank won't be tough, if that's what's called
for. I'll wait for comments from the PWAites as well on this one. For the
time being, CELEG as checked into the repository will produce the PART
bank. I would ask Mark or Franz for the tag to use to get the previous
version.
John Price *** *** *** *** pricej@cebaf.gov
Where there is no solution, there is no problem.