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

Contents Determine that my transfer plate centers are better than Dave’s Hand fits give me something to validate Cocoa with James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

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 James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

Alignment pin PG looks OK Alignment pins outline the SLMs neatly. One not measured James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

CMS X comparison X_mine-X_PG mean 0.1mm RMS 1.1mm X_dave-X_PG ME-2/SLM2 fits poorly for Dave’s #’s. Excluded here. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

CMS Y and Z comparison Y_Dave-Y_PG Mean 1.2mm RMS 2.6mm Y_Mine-Y-PG dZ is different: clumpy; but note that my clumps are tighter James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

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 James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

Reason for Z “clumps” Cross section of SLM Cocoa model has all chambers in the same plane: Wrong but easily fixed up. SLM line 248mm Chambers are at different distances from the SLM laser James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

How Did I Generate Positions? V direction Zsensor H direction SLM DCOPS Transfer DCOPS Center of TP is here Simple and short translation from target to center Three PG targets on top of DCOPS James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

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 James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

Transfer Line Coordinate system V direction CMS Y H direction Transfer plate “X” direction varies with position CMS X James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

Hand Fits Illustration Transfer Line 1 Horizontal (Rphi) coordinate Fit for two laser beams and offsets for each DCOPS Position is wrt center of Transfer Line Blue points are raw data Black are fit positions Distance between points is invariant with fit CMS Z (mm) James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

Changes in Cocoa Model Single Transfer Line Fix DCOPS internals Fix DCOPS mounts Fix disks Widen TP error James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

Offsets for Line 1 MAB calcs not readily comparable yet Station dX (mm) Cocoa Hand fit dY (mm) 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 MAB calcs not readily comparable yet James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

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. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

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 James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

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 James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

BACKUP James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

Predicting MAB positions 34.78 MAB center to MAB sensor center (fixed) 2736.35 Radial lever arm: center to DCOPS (fixed) -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 -0.003403 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 26-March-2010