1 / 52

Cocoa ME+1 vs PG

Cocoa ME+1 vs PG. James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 2-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

tamika
Download Presentation

Cocoa ME+1 vs PG

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. Cocoa ME+1 vs PG James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 2-March-2009

  2. James N. Bellinger 2-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. 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

  4. 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

  5. Fit Ring (average of all chambers) Position Deviations from Ideal James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  6. Cocoa Fit Ideal vs DDD • Only 6 entries. Cocoa Ideal minus DDD geometry • Ring 3 only • TODO: where did 8.415mm come from James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  7. 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

  8. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 Method for Predicting Z from PG • Get PG (X,Y,Z) wrt disk center from UR-0058 or UR-0103 • Rotate disk as specified in UR-0124 • Translate disk as specified in UR-0124

  9. 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 2-March-2009 DCOPS from PG and Cocoa 0T FitSummary • DCOPS Dowel positions: 0T Cocoa fit – predicted from PG • Transfer: mean=0.67, rms=2.29mm • 1/3_outer: mean=2.93, rms=3.83mm • 1/3_inner: mean=-0.20, rms=1.37mm • HSLM6 is not included • RMS is large, and at least partly attributable to PG problems

  11. James N. Bellinger 2-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 2-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. 3.8T Cocoa 1/3 Chamber Centers James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  14. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 PG errors and chamber mismounts • PG deviations from Ideal include • PG error, typos, and wrong targets • Real chamber mismount • Overall shifts and rotations of the disk • Subtract the overall shifts and rotations to get a better picture of the PG errors and mismount errors • In what follows PG Chamber centers are derived from alignment pin locations

  15. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 PG vs DDD, ME+1/2 Chamber centers Overall rotations and translations are removed Deviations combine PG error and chamber mounting Max x/y dev is 2.2mm cm

  16. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 PG vs DDD, ME+1/3 Chamber centers Overall rotations and translations are removed Deviations combine PG error and chamber mounting Max x/y dev is 2.6mm Still a tilt? cm

  17. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 PG to DDD summary • Deviation of PG from standard geometry in the X/Y plane is at most 2.2mm for ME+1/2 and 2.6mm for ME+1/3. • RMS for X deviations is • .7 for ME+1/2 • .8 for ME+1/3 • RMS for Y deviations is • .9 for ME+1/2 • 1.5 for ME+1/3 • RMS for Z is about 6. and 5.5mm

  18. James N. Bellinger 2-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

  19. James N. Bellinger 2-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

  20. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 ME+1/3 deviation changes 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 Animated cm

  21. James N. Bellinger 2-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!

  22. “Cocoa(0T) vs Ideal” vs “PG vs Ideal”Variation of Deviations James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  23. James N. Bellinger 2-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

  24. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 ME+1/3 0T Cocoa fits using PG start X Y Z

  25. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 Special 0T – normal 0T X Y Z PG not available

  26. James N. Bellinger 2-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

  27. 3.8T Initial Chamber Pos from PG James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  28. Special 3.8T – Original 3.8T James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  29. James N. Bellinger 2-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

  30. Blessing for ME+1/3 chamber Z? James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  31. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 TODO • Slide comparing alignment pin PG to coded target PG to DCOPS PG • Include pictures of system SLM by SLM • Outer Laser position/direction not reasonable • But Cocoa intersections with CCD seem OK • Z-sensor dowel not cleanly matched to distance • No labels • Not complete • Very hard to understand the current pictures: both cluttered and obscure

  32. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 Evaluate the PG • Photogrammetry errors are not 300μ

  33. James N. Bellinger 2-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

  34. Variation of PG Z for DCOPS PG target position 3-point ave/rms James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  35. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 DCOPS PG Variation Along Line

  36. James N. Bellinger 2-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

  37. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 Coded Target Z – Predicted Z ME+1/3 chambers Alignment pins used to predict Z of coded target given its X/Y Variation exceeds 425microns Looks like single distribution, NOT a narrow one with a few typos mm

  38. Chamber surface Z’s from PG James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  39. 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. No 10mm shift present mm, corrected data values James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  40. Z’s from PG vs data • The HSLM6 outer Z seems out of line with the rest in the line, but agrees with the alignment pin estimate • Data shows O(4mm) deviation at 3 Outer also • PG deviation is OK mm, corrected data values James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  41. James N. Bellinger 2-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 the variation is due to random errors: for a DCOPS target at • Transfer Plate: 140μ • Outer chamber edge: 470μ • Inner chamber edge: 350μ • Other option is to disregard PG measures with large disagreements with either other PG measurements or with data

  42. Distancemeter and dists Chamber surface estimates DCOPS dowels Laser is wrong somehow Red=Real Green=Sim ME12 ASPD IR target MAB ASPD ASPD P4 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  43. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  44. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  45. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  46. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  47. 3.8T is bad IR target obscured, Z is bad James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

  48. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 • BACKUP • MATERIAL

  49. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 0T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal 6 measured centers Overall rotation and translation is removed cm

  50. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009 0T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal 5 measured centers Overall rotation and translation is removed cm

More Related