James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 26-March-2010

1

James N. Bellinger

University of Wisconsin-Madison

26-March-2010

Transfer Line FitsTransfer Line FitsTransfer Line FitsTransfer Line Fits

James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

2

Contents

1. Determine that my transfer plate centers are better than Dave’s

2. Hand fits give me something to validate Cocoa with


3

Whose TP centers are better?

• Fit a set of SLMs with Dave’s and with my transfer plate centers at 0T

• Find alignment pins positions wrt the disk

• Compare with PG of pins wrt disk

• Select ME-2 and ME-3 since I did not test them before


4

Alignment pin PG looks OK


Alignment pins outline the SLMs neatly.One not measured

5

CMS X comparison


X_mine-X_PG mean 0.1mm RMS 1.1mm

X_dave-X_PG mean 0.6mm RMS 1.9mm

ME-2/SLM2 fits poorly for Dave’s #’s. Excluded here.

6

CMS Y and Z comparison


Y_Dave-Y_PG Mean 1.2mm RMS 2.6mm

Y_Mine-Y-PG Mean 0.3mm RMS 1.2mm

dZ is different: clumpy; but note that my clumps are tighter

7

Conclusion

• My calculated TP centers clearly result in better fits, even if the Cocoa model is not perfect

• Note that the Cocoa model does not account for the different chamber distances from the SLM: these need to be introduced by hand


8

Reason for Z “clumps”


Chambers are at different distances from the SLM laser

248mm

SLM line

Cross section of SLM

Cocoa model has all chambers in the same plane: Wrong but easily fixed up.

9

How Did I Generate Positions?


V direction

H direction

Three PG targets on top of DCOPS

Center of TP is hereSimple and short translation from target to center

Transfer DCOPSSLM DCOPS

Zsensor

10

Hand Fit Comparison

• I create 12 independent fits for the transfer lines

• 2 for each transfer line, in the H and V directions (illustrated in next slide) native to the transfer line coordinate system

• 0T data from June 2009: Oleg pointed me to a range and a BFI search found some good data: no profiles, unfortunately


11

Transfer Line Coordinate system


V direction

H direction

CMS X

CMS Y

Transfer plate “X” direction varies with position

12

Hand Fits Illustration


Transfer Line 1Horizontal (Rphi) coordinateFit for two laser beams and offsets for each DCOPSPosition is wrt center of Transfer Line

Blue points are raw dataBlack are fit positions

Distance between points is invariant with fit

CMS Z (mm)

13

Changes in Cocoa Model

• Single Transfer Line

• Fix DCOPS internals

• Fix DCOPS mounts

• Fix disks

• Widen TP error


14

Offsets for Line 1


StationdX (mm) Cocoa

dX (mm)Hand fit

dY (mm) Cocoa

dY (mm)Hand fit

ME+3 2.07378 2.520 -5.58365 -6.072

ME+2 2.06415 2.474 -4.66432 -5.098

ME+1 1.00499 1.220 -5.41692 -5.732

MAB+3 1.32987 3.855 -3.47646 21.982*

MAB+1 -2.30884 3.528 0.357306 25.469*

MAB-1 -1.29895 4.907 -2.51285 -0.214

MAB-3 1.74611 4.546 -0.113382 1.540

ME-1 1.02517 0.893 -5.25257 -5.361

ME-2 1.16804 1.462 4.50519 4.383

ME-3 0.11244 -0.040 3.85222 4.062

MA

B calcs n

ot readily com

parab

le yet

15

First pass at residuals


No cuts on quality yet 570 microns for this, 440 if exclude point at -3

Residuals still far too large, but agreement with hand fit says we’re on the right track.

16

Conclusions

• Cocoa reproduces the Endcap part of the hand fit successfully– Possibly better, since it includes beam fan tilt

instead of using averages

• More work required on MAB: different sizes

• If continue to get agreement, this will validate the Cocoa calculation


17

Plans

• Re-expand scope of fit

• Find MABs I can use to constrain the lines

• Check MABs for consistency

• If agree, calculate Transfer Plate positions in X and Y

• Review SLM models with Himali, and generate chamber positions

• Converge on a plan for Z

• Generate chamber Z and angles


18James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

BACKUP

19

Predicting MAB positions


34.78 34.78 34.78 34.78 34.78 34.78 MAB center to MAB sensor center (fixed)

2736.35 2736.35 2736.35 2736.35 2736.35 2736.35Radial lever arm: center to DCOPS (fixed)

-33.14 -33.14 -33.14 -33.14 -33.14 -33.14 MAB sensor center to target (fixed)-6698.93 -6694.2 -6694.74 -6694.49 -6691.12 -6693.94 MAB center in Z

-0.003264 -0.003333 0 0 0 -0.003403 MAB y-angle rotation-6706.2214 -6701.6803 -6693.1 -6692.85 -6689.48 -6701.6118 Predicted target position-6671.4414 -6666.9003 -6658.32 -6658.07 -6654.7 -6666.8318 My predicted MAB center

-23.480 16.328 29.950 23.078 36.226 20.019 How far from ideal is rear?-24.743 13.167 27.616 26.346 47.551 24.589 How far from PG is rear estimate?

Try working backward-10487.737 -10485.839 -10486.666 -10492.268 -10500.325 -10493.57 Rear TP from photogrammetry-10519.287 -10517.389 -10518.216 -10523.818 -10531.875 -10525.12 Distance to IP side of TP4-9629.771 -9628.595 -9629.196 -9631.867 -9644.918 -9635.249 To IP side of TP3-8018.672 -8017.435 -8019.927 -8023.371 -8035.466 -8024.924 To IP side of TP2-6887.060 -6885.315 -6888.109 -6891.053 -6903.913 -6893.197 To IP side of TP1-6681.478 -6678.050 -6683.246 -6683.125 -6698.899 -6690.420 Estimating MAB target gives

24.743 23.630 9.854 9.725 -9.419 11.192 Estimated MAB-found MAB

James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 26-March-2010

Documents