1 / 67

Cocoa ME+1 Blessing

Cocoa ME+1 Blessing. James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 20-March-2009. Data used. 0T Distancemeter 16-Nov average DCOPS 11-Nov event Link from Celso 3.8T Distancemeter 1-4 Nov average DCOPS 27-Oct event Link from Celso PG

adara
Download Presentation

Cocoa ME+1 Blessing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Cocoa ME+1 Blessing James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 20-March-2009

  2. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Data used 0T Distancemeter 16-Nov average DCOPS 11-Nov event Link from Celso 3.8T Distancemeter 1-4 Nov average DCOPS 27-Oct event Link from Celso PG PG within disk UR-0058 (2006) (Oleg cleaned it up) Supplementary UR-0103 (2008) PG of disk UR-0124 (after Craft)

  3. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Cocoa Fit Types • Ideal • Ideal Geometry for Endcap+Link, default data • 0T • Data from 0T, Link fit geometry/data from 0T • Transfer plates from PG, rest of Endcap ideal • 3.8T • Data from 3.8T, Link fit geometry/data from 3.8T • Transfer plates from PG, rest of Endcap ideal • Special • Data from 0T, Link fit geometry/data from 0T • Transfer plates from PG, initial chamber pos PG

  4. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Cocoa Ideal Fit vs DDD • Only 6 entries. Cocoa Ideal minus DDD geometry • Ring 3 only • Cocoa Ideal geometry fit is fine: “chi-squared” is 1.4 with 872 “degrees of freedom”

  5. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Chamber Z deviations Cocoa 3.8T and 0T vs Ideal Cocoa 3.8T Cocoa 0T Cocoa Ideal Ideal fit uses ideal geom and nominal measurements HSLM6 bad due to blocked IR target

  6. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Chamber center Z deviations The Cocoa 0T fits are not far from the PG numbers The 1_2 chamber deviations with field agree w/ Celso's numbers The HSLM6 fits are bad because of a blocked IR target Rms=1.5 Rms=1.0

  7. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Fit Ring (average of all chambers) Position Deviations from Ideal

  8. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 ME+1/3 chamber tilts (mrad) 0T 3.8T 3.8T-0T At disk top At disk bottom Tilts (mrad) determined from DCOPS Z positions at upper and lower ends of each chamber

  9. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 PG targets and Cocoa 0T Fits:Z of DCOPS dowels Uses the DCOPS PG targets to predict the DCOPS dowel positions for the Xfer DCOPS and the ME+1/3 DCOPS Different target holders at ME+1/3/09_outer and ME+1/3/27_outer??Inconsistent

  10. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 DCOPS from PG vs Cocoa 0T FitSummary DCOPS Dowel positions: 0T Cocoa fit – predicted from PG of DCOPS targets Reference: mean= 0.67, rms=2.29mm ME+1/3_outer: mean= 2.93, rms=3.83mm ME+1/3_inner: mean= -0.20, rms=1.37mm HSLM6 is not included RMS is large, and at least partly attributable to PG problems “Reference” = reference DCOPS on transfer plate

  11. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Deviations from Ideal Chamber mounting errors: should not exceed a few mm PG measurement errors: supposedly 300 microns but I don’t believe that anymore Cocoa fitting errors Real distortions because of the field

  12. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Cocoa Estimated Errors Cocoa returns some estimated errors for quantities in the coordinate system of the mother volume (Cocoa uses a hierarchical system description) If I assume that off-diagonal entries are 0, I can transform this to the CMS coordinate system I have no sense of how well Cocoa estimates errors

  13. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 3.8T Cocoa ME+1/3 Chamber Centers

  14. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Now Compare Cocoa to DDD Cocoa errors and chamber mismounts both contribute to this Remove overall disk rotation and translation to get a picture of the internal shifting Only 6 chambers available for ME+1/2 Only 5 chambers for ME+1/3 (PT6 bad) Does NOT display chamber tilts

  15. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Expect Z shift of ring due to disk bending will be gone Rotation of disk will be gone Chamber mismounting, sensor mismeasure, and Cocoa fit error will remain

  16. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 ME+1/3 deviation changes with field 5 measured centers Overall rotation and translation is removed No more than a few dozen microns difference between the patterns found with field off and field on Max dev =1.6mm Animated cm

  17. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Cocoa Estimates Cocoa vs Ideal deviation RMSs are comparable to and smaller than (on the average) PG vs Ideal deviation RMSs: next slide’s table Cocoa better than PG? Deviation averages aren’t always 0 because of missing measurements BUT Cocoa may be biased to finding things close to the ideal, since the ideal geometry is one of the inputs!

  18. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 “Cocoa(0T) vs Ideal” vs “PG vs Ideal”Variation of Deviations

  19. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Check for Bias Create a new 0T SDF file using PG measurements instead of Ideal geometry as the starting point for chamber positions Compare fits from this special run to the normal 0T run

  20. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 ME+1/3 0T Cocoa fits using PG start X Y Z “Chi2” for ideal is 1593, special is 1643 for 866 “dof”

  21. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Special 0T – normal 0T X Y Z PG not available Rms=.15

  22. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Special 0T – normal 0T: notes • The difference between using PG and Ideal geometry as a starting point has little effect on the Z fit: 10 microns in most places • HSLM2 did not have good PG measurements for the alignment pins, so the Special run used Ideal measurements • X and Y are not well constrained without the presence of the Transfer Lines. • The fact that the Z measurement is bad at PT6 is irrelevant to this comparison, which studies fit stability

  23. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 5’th Cocoa Run • Special 3.8T • Endcap data from 3.8T • Initial chamber and transfer plate positions from PG • Link and MAB fit geometry and data for 3.8T

  24. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 3.8T Fit Using Initial Chamber Positions from Apin PG

  25. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Special 3.8T – Original 3.8T

  26. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Cloud on the horizon:ME+1/2 chamber Z centers

  27. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Why the difference? Not sure yet Change with field is the same

  28. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Conclusions Cocoa fit for ME+1/3 chambers is stable with respect to initial conditions in Z Photogrammetry includes spurious outliers Cocoa deviations from the ideal are tighter than PG deviations, even if PG values were the starting point

  29. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Blessing for ME+1/3 chamber Z

  30. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Evaluate the PG Photogrammetry errors for the Z of the alignment pins are not 300μ Loveless says the pins were not inserted to nominal depth

  31. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 PG targets on chambers • Targets on DCOPS (not used in next slide) • Targets on alignment pins • Coded targets on chambers • Use alignment pins to define chamber axis • Use X/Y of coded target to predict a Z • Compare predicted w/ measured Z

  32. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Coded Target Z – Predicted Z ME+1/3 chambers Alignment pins used to predict Z of coded target given its X/Y Rms=1.4mm Looks like a single distribution, NOT a narrow one with a few typos mm

  33. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Crosscheck coded targets • Oleg says some were on wrong chambers • Use his corrected table • Look at deviation of coded target from alignment pin axis line • Nothing looks badly wrong; largest deviation is 145mm from axis (min 75mm)

  34. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 DCOPS targets DCOPS on Transfer Plate, chamber 3 outer and chamber 3 inner have three 1.27mm PG targets on top. These were included in the survey. In the following table the three measurements were averaged for each of the 18 visible DCOPS

  35. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Variation of PG Z for DCOPS PG target position 3-point ave/rms

  36. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 DCOPS PG Variation Along Line

  37. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Evaluation of DCOPS targets Consistency of measurement: The Transfer Plate DCOPS are measured significantly better than the rest HSLM5 outer DCOPS are not very consistent Consistency along line: Chamber mounting variations contribute! HSLM2 and HSLM5 show unreasonably large fluctuations

  38. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Chamber surface Z’s from PG Rms=.37 Rms=.53

  39. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Z’s from PG vs data • HSLM5 outer chamber 3 DCOPS measurements are clearly out of line • The DCOPS readings from HSLM5 correspond to corrected values shown at right. • Not much variation mm, corrected data values

  40. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 PG Conclusions Assuming the Alignment pin and coded target errors are comparable, the variation on these is 1mm and not 300 microns. If coded error=300μ, Apin error is 2mm If the variation is due to random errors: for a DCOPS target at Transfer Plate: 140μ Outer chamber edge: 470μ Inner chamber edge: 350μ Disregard PG measures with large disagreements with either other PG measurements or with data?

  41. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Displays Omitting lines illustrating chamber surface Triangles show the slope well enough PG information not displayed Diagram is very cluttered already HSLM1-5 are animated to show 0 to 3.8T shifts HSLM6 has bad data for the DCOPS at 3.8T and bad Z information for the distancemeter

  42. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Distancemeter and dists DCOPS dowels Chamber surface estimates Red=Real Green=Sim ME12 ASPD IR target MAB ASPD ASPD P4 Animated

  43. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Animated

  44. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Animated

  45. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Animated

  46. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Animated

  47. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 3.8T is bad IR target obscured, Z is bad

  48. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Animated

  49. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Animated

  50. James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009 Animated

More Related