cocoa me+1 vs pg
DESCRIPTION
Cocoa ME+1 vs PG. James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 2-March-2009. Data used. 0T Distancemeter16-Nov average DCOPS11-Nov event Linkfrom Celso 3.8T Distancemeter1-4 Nov average DCOPS27-Oct event Linkfrom Celso PG - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
James N. Bellinger
University of Wisconsin-Madison
2-March-2009
Cocoa ME+1 vs PGCocoa ME+1 vs PGCocoa ME+1 vs PGCocoa ME+1 vs PG
2James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Data usedData used
0TDistancemeter 16-Nov average
DCOPS 11-Nov event
Link from Celso
3.8TDistancemeter 1-4 Nov average
DCOPS 27-Oct event
Link from Celso
PGPG within disk UR-0058 (2006) (Oleg cleaned it up)
Supplementary UR-0103 (2008)
PG of disk UR-0124 (after Craft)
3
Cocoa Fit 3.8T - Fit 0T
Cocoa Fit 0T - P.G.
ME+1/3/03 -1.76 -0.71
ME+1/3/09 -0.01 2.08
ME+1/3/14 0.15 2.27
ME+1/3/20 -1.46 -0.24
ME+1/3/27 -3.1 -1.88
ME+1/3/33 -8.33 3.27
ME+1/2/02 -8.24 0.16
ME+1/2/08 -7.36 2.46
ME+1/2/14 -6.81 0.25
ME+1/2/20 -8.23 -0.62
ME+1/2/26 -8.67 0.65
ME+1/2/32 -8.96 2.11
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
Chamber center Z deviationsChamber center Z deviations
4
Fit 0T- Fit Ideal
3.8T-Ideal
X Y Z X Y Z
ME+1/3/03 0.58 -2.17 -1.16 0.58 -2.14 -2.93
ME+1/3/09 2.31 -0.62 -4.38 2.2 -0.59 -4.39
ME+1/3/14 -0.32 -0.32 -3 -0.17 -0.17 -2.85
ME+1/3/20 0.11 -0.43 1.28 0.04 -0.13 -0.18
ME+1/3/27 1.03 -0.28 2.57 1.29 -0.35 -0.53
ME+1/3/33 -0.89 -0.88 8.33 0 0 -0.01
ME+1/2/02 0.9 -3.38 1.16 0.98 -3.66 -7.08
ME+1/2/08 3.46 -0.93 -0.54 3.51 -0.93 -7.89
ME+1/2/14 -0.07 -0.07 -0.93 0.07 0.07 -7.74
ME+1/2/20 -0.03 0.11 2.47 -0.1 0.37 -5.76
ME+1/2/26 0.92 -0.24 5.77 1.03 -0.28 -2.9
ME+1/2/32 -0.29 -0.27 5.3 -0.4 -0.4 -3.66
Chamber Z deviations Chamber Z deviations Cocoa 3.8T and 0T vs IdealCocoa 3.8T and 0T vs Ideal
Cocoa 3.8TCocoa 0TCocoa Ideal
Ideal fit uses ideal geom and nominal measurements
5James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Fit Ring Fit Ring (average of all chambers)(average of all chambers) Position Position Deviations from IdealDeviations from Ideal
0T-Ideal
X
0T-Ideal
Y
0T-Ideal
Z
3.8T-Ideal
X
3.8T-Ideal
Y
3.8T-Ideal
Z
+1/3 .74 -.76 -.94 .79 -.68 -2.18
+1/2 .98 -.98 1.59 1.10 -.97 -6.27
PG
(disk).58 -1.37 0.57 NA NA NA
6James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Cocoa Fit Ideal vs DDDCocoa Fit Ideal vs DDD
• Only 6 entries. Cocoa Ideal minus DDD geometry
• Ring 3 only
• TODO: where did 8.415mm come from
Mean
microns
RMS
microns
X-xddd -17 69
Y-yddd -55 52
Z-zddd8.415
mm1
7
ME+1/3/03 -0.5 1.53 2.03
ME+1/3/09 -0.83 1.99 2.83
ME+1/3/14 -1.14 1.09 2.23
ME+1/3/20 0.41 2.63 2.22
ME+1/3/27 -1.93 -0.69 1.25
ME+1/3/33 2.22 0 -2.22
AVERAGE -0.8 1.3 2.1
At disk bottom
At disk top
Tilts (mrad) determined from DCOPS Z positions at upper and lower ends of each chamber
0T 3.8T 3.8T-0T
ME+1/3 chamber tilts (mrad)ME+1/3 chamber tilts (mrad)
8James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Method for Predicting Z from PGMethod 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
Uses the DCOPS PG targets to predict the DCOPS dowel positions for the Xfer DCOPS and the ME+1/3 DCOPSDifferent target holders at ME+1/3/09_outer and ME+1/3/27_outer?? Inconsistent
XFER
PG Pred
1/3Out
PG Pred
1/3In
PG Pred
XFer
Cocoa
1/3Out
Cocoa
1/3In
Cocoa
XFer
Coco-PG
1/3Out
Coco-PG
1/3In
Coco-PG
HSLM1 6823.54 6822.89 6823.74 6822.07 6821.67 6822.52 -1.47 -1.22 -1.22
HSLM2 6814.79 6809.68 6817.57 6819.28 6818.13 6819.57 4.49 8.45 2.00
HSLM3 6817.67 6816.99 6820.12 6819.78 6818.86 6820.82 2.11 1.87 0.70
HSLM4 6826.79 6825.80 6826.16 6825.68 6825.09 6824.39 -1.11 -0.72 -1.77
HSLM5 6826.27 6817.91 6828.22 6825.62 6824.18 6827.51 -0.66 6.27 -0.71
HSLM6 6829.10 6826.17 6828.15 6838.06 6833.60 6829.79 8.97 7.43 1.64
PG targets and Cocoa 0T Fits:PG targets and Cocoa 0T Fits:Z of DCOPS dowelsZ of DCOPS dowels
10James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
DCOPS from PG and Cocoa 0T FitDCOPS from PG and Cocoa 0T FitSummarySummary
DCOPS Dowel positions: 0T Cocoa fit – predicted from PG
Transfer: mean=0.67, rms=2.29mm1/3_outer: mean=2.93, rms=3.83mm1/3_inner: mean=-0.20, rms=1.37mm
HSLM6 is not included
RMS is large, and at least partly attributable to PG problems
11James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Deviations from IdealDeviations 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
12James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Cocoa Estimated ErrorsCocoa 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
13James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
3.8T Cocoa 1/3 Chamber Centers3.8T Cocoa 1/3 Chamber Centers
mm, Cocoa errors X Y Z
ME+1/3_03 5593.20 ± .37 2033.34 ± .31 6864.52 ± .13
ME+1/3_09 1035.73 ± .30 5860.51 ± .38 6863.06 ± .13
ME+1/3_14 -3825.85 ± .25 4558.86 ± .23 6864.59 ± .37
ME+1/3_20 -5861.03 ± .16 -1033.74 ± .30 6867.26 ± .37
ME+1/3_27 -1032.27 ± .30 -5861.44 ± .38 6866.91 ± .13
14James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
PG errors and chamber mismountsPG errors and chamber mismounts
PG deviations from Ideal include 1. PG error, typos, and wrong targets
2. Real chamber mismount
3. 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
15James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
PG vs DDD, ME+1/2PG vs DDD, ME+1/2
Chamber centers
Overall rotations and translations are removed
Deviations combine PG error and chamber mounting
cm
Max x/y dev is 2.2mm
16James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
PG vs DDD, ME+1/3PG vs DDD, ME+1/3
Chamber centers
Overall rotations and translations are removed
Deviations combine PG error and chamber mounting
cm
Max x/y dev is 2.6mm
Still a tilt?
17James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
PG to DDD summaryPG 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
18James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Now Compare Cocoa to DDDNow 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
19James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
ExpectExpect
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
20James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
ME+1/3 deviation changesME+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
21James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Cocoa EstimatesCocoa Estimates
Cocoa vs Ideal deviation RMSs are comparable to and smaller than (on the average) PG vs Ideal deviation RMSs: next slide’s tableCocoa 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!
22James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
““Cocoa(0T) vs Ideal” Cocoa(0T) vs Ideal” vsvs “PG vs Ideal” “PG vs Ideal”Variation of DeviationsVariation of Deviations
Cocoa Cocoa PG Apin PG Apin
ME+1/2 ME+1/3 ME+1/2 ME+1/3
X devs 0 ± 1.2 0 ± 0.8 0 ± 0.7 0 ± 0.8
Y devs 0.1 ± 0.7 0.2 ± 0.6 0.2 ± 0.9 1.1 ± 1.5
Z devs 0 ± 0.4 -0.5 ± 0.8 3.1 ± 6.0 1.8 ± 5.5
23James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Check for BiasCheck 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
24James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
ME+1/3 0T Cocoa fits using PG startME+1/3 0T Cocoa fits using PG start
ME+1/3_03 5595.34 2033.7 6866.29
ME+1/3_09 1035.84 5860.48 6863.06
ME+1/3_14 -3826.75 4559.44 6864.58
ME+1/3_20 -5863.59 -1034.74 6869.03
ME+1/3_27 -1032.91 -5863.23 6870
ME+1/3_33 4558.73 -3827.16 6875.77
X Y Z
25James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Special 0T – normal 0TSpecial 0T – normal 0T
X Y Z
ME+1/3_03 2.13 0.39 0.01
ME+1/3_09 0 0 0
ME+1/3_14 -0.76 0.73 0.13
ME+1/3_20 -2.64 -0.7 0.31
ME+1/3_27 -0.39 -1.86 -0.01
ME+1/3_33 0.52 -0.66 -0.01
PG notavailable
26James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Special 0T – normal 0T: notesSpecial 0T – normal 0T: notes
1. The difference between using PG and Ideal geometry as a starting point has little effect on the Z fit: 10 microns in most places
2. HSLM2 did not have good PG measurements for the alignment pins, so the Special run used Ideal measurements
3. X and Y are not well constrained without the presence of the Transfer Lines.
4. The fact that the Z measurement is bad at PT6 is irrelevant to this comparison, which studies fit stability
27James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
3.8T Initial Chamber Pos from PG3.8T Initial Chamber Pos from PG
X Y Z
ME+1/3_03
5595.336 2033.726 6864.532
ME+1/3_09
1035.726 5860.509 6863.053
ME+1/3_14
-3826.607 4559.585 6864.728
ME+1/3_20
-5863.667 -1034.446 6867.583
ME+1/3_27
-1032.655 -5863.300 6866.901
ME+1/3_33
4559.190 -3826.700 6866.523
28James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Special 3.8T – Original 3.8TSpecial 3.8T – Original 3.8T
X Y Z
ME+1/3_03 2.136 0.388 0.016
ME+1/3_09 -0.003 0.000 -0.002
ME+1/3_14 -0.759 0.725 0.134
ME+1/3_20 -2.638 -0.703 0.319
ME+1/3_27 -0.385 -1.865 -0.012
ME+1/3_33 0.099 -1.085 -0.917
29James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
ConclusionsConclusions
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
30James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Blessing for ME+1/3 chamber Z?Blessing for ME+1/3 chamber Z?
0T Pos mm 0T Tilt mrad 3.8T Pos mm 3.8T Tilt mrad
ME+1/3_03 6866.29 -0.5 6864.532 1.53
ME+1/3_09 6863.06 -0.83 6863.053 1.99
ME+1/3_14 6864.58 -1.14 6864.728 1.09
ME+1/3_20 6869.03 0.41 6867.583 2.63
ME+1/3_27 6870 -1.93 6866.901 -0.69
Average 6866.59 -0.8 6863.36 1.3
Δ from nominal
-0.85mm -0.8mrad -4.08mm 1.3mrad
31James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
TODOTODO
Slide comparing alignment pin PG to coded target PG to DCOPS PG
Include pictures of system SLM by SLMOuter 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
32James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Evaluate the PGEvaluate the PG
Photogrammetry errors are not 300μ
33James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
DCOPS targetsDCOPS 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
34James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Variation of PG Z for DCOPSVariation of PG Z for DCOPS
Xfer Ave
Xfer Rms
3 out Ave
3 out Rms
3 in Ave
3 in Rms
HSLM1 -818.627 0.169 -819.137 0.097 -818.447 0.193
HSLM2 -821.44 0.037 -826.92 0.385 -820.46 0.198
HSLM3 -819.437 0.054 -820.387 0.067 -818.577 0.197
HSLM4 -817.093 0.040 -818.067 0.099 -817.37 0.169
HSLM5 -823.65 0.082 -831.597 0.737 -819.617 0.148
HSLM6 -819.76 0.092 -822.547 0.238 -818.847 0.302
PG target position 3-point ave/rms
35James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
DCOPS PG Variation Along LineDCOPS PG Variation Along Line
HSLM1
HSLM2
HSLM3
HSLM4
HSLM5
HSLM6
Ave Z Rms Z
-818.737 0.292233
-822.94 2.842581
-819.467 0.739234
-817.51 0.409507
-824.954 4.977033
-820.384 1.573732
36James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Evaluation of DCOPS targetsEvaluation 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
37James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Coded Target Z – Predicted ZCoded Target Z – Predicted Z
mm
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
38James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Chamber surface Z’s from PGChamber surface Z’s from PG
Apin outer
Apin inner Coded
DCOPS 3 outer
DCOPS 3 inner Diff outer Diff inner
HSLM1 -696.47 -696.93 -697.44 -697.497 -696.807 -1.02667 0.123333
HSLM2 NA -697.98 -699.06 -705.28 -698.82 NA -0.84
HSLM3 -696.89 -696.3 -698.39 -698.747 -696.937 -1.85667 -0.63667
HSLM4 -694.78 -695.64 -696.72 -696.427 -695.73 -1.64667 -0.09
HSLM5 -699.15 -697.15 -699.21 -709.957 -697.977 -10.8067 -0.82667
HSLM6 -700.4 -696.53 -697.45 -700.907 -697.207 -0.50667 -0.67667
39James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Z’s from PG vs dataZ’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
XFer 3 Out
3 In 2
18.98
16.72
17.10
18.26
mm, corrected data values
40James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Z’s from PG vs dataZ’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
XFer 3 Out
3 In 2
18.32
15.79
21.32
23.45
mm, corrected data values
41James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
PG ConclusionsPG 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 atTransfer Plate: 140μOuter chamber edge: 470μInner chamber edge:350μ
Other option is to disregard PG measures with large disagreements with either other PG measurements or with data
42James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Laser is wrong somehow
Chamber surface estimates
Red=RealGreen=Sim
MAB ASPD
ME12 ASPD
ASPD P4
Distancemeter and dists
IR target
DCOPS dowels
43James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
44James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
45James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
46James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
47James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
3.8T is bad
IR target obscured, Z is bad
48James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
BACKUPMATERIAL
49James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
0T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal0T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal
6 measured centers
Overall rotation and translation is removed
cm
50James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
0T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal0T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal
5 measured centers
Overall rotation and translation is removed
cm
51James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
3.8T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal3.8T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal
6 measured centers
Overall rotation and translation is removed
cm
52James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
3.8T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal3.8T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal
5 measured centers
Overall rotation and translation is removed
cm