Status of Transfer Line Reconstruction University of Wisconsin-Madison

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
R. Lee CMS EMU Alignment: 28 Feb, COCOA Simulation and Study of the EMU Alignment System Robert Lee CMS Endcap Alignment Muon EDR 28 February 2002.
Advertisements

Definition  Regression Model  Regression Equation Y i =  0 +  1 X i ^ Given a collection of paired data, the regression equation algebraically describes.
1 James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009 ME+1 status and Endcap Z James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin at Madison 4-Feb-2009.
Skeleton: Hardware Alignment for EMU meeting James N Bellinger 15-Mar-2009.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, Endcap Alignment Dick Loveless DOE/NSF Review 9 May 2001.
Goal : Setup and monitor “chambers” with resolution of < 200  m Demonstrate System Redundancy Test Setup : 1 SLM Line 1 Transfer Line 1 Transfer Plate.
Assessing Single Crystal Diamond Quality
First Reconstruction Results on the Alignment of Muon Endcap Chambers in the CMS Experiment at CERN S. Guragain, G. Baksay, M. Hohlmann Florida Tech 74.
Hand Crosscheck HSLM1. Position of REF DCOPS CENTER MAB Target DM distance DMdowel to DCOPS dowel DCOPS dowel to center.
1 James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 27-November-2009 Status of Transfer Line Reconstruction James N. Bellinger 27-November-2009.
Warm up 11 1.) Graph using 3 points x +3y =6 2.) Graph using intercepts 3x-2=y 2.) Graph a.) x=-3 b.) y=-2.
November 11 SESAPS 2006 Samir Guragain 1 Calibration, Installation & Commissioning of Sensors for the Alignment of Muon Endcap Chambers in the CMS Experiment.
Chamber Alignment Pins Δy = y PG – y nom. vs. Δx = x PG – x nom. M. Hohlmann 1, G. Baksay 1, S. Guragain 1, J. Bellinger 2, D. Carlsmith 2, F. Feyzi 2,
Alignment Meeting, CERN, Sept 19, 2006O.Prokofiev 1 EMU Alignment System Analog Data Analysis for ME+1yME+4 Stations Run: Aug 25-28, 2006 Magnetic field.
1 James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 2-February-2011 Status and Plans for Endcap Hardware Alignment James N. Bellinger 2-February-2011.
1 James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 13 February 2008 Cocoa Plans.
1 James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 13-August-2010 Endcap Processing Notes James N. Bellinger 13-Aug-2010.
Chapters 8 Linear Regression. Correlation and Regression Correlation = linear relationship between two variables. Summarize relationship with line. Called.
EMU Meeting, CERN, Sept 18-19, 2006O.Prokofiev 1 EMU Alignment System Analog Data Analysis for ME+1yME+4 Stations Run: Aug 25-28, 2006 Magnetic field up.
1 James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 25-February-2011 Z-sensor News James N. Bellinger 25-February-2011 Good news this time!
XRT SOT Alignment DeLuca With comments from Tarbell & Metcalf 21-Jan-2006.
1 James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 15-March-2009 Hardware Alignment.
1 James N. Bellinger Robert Handler University of Wisconsin-Madison 11-Monday-2009 Laser fan non-linearity James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009.
1 James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 19-Feb-2010 Status of Transfer Line Reconstruction James N. Bellinger 19-February-2010.
James Bellinger, December CMS Week Muon Alignment James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin at Madison 5-December-2006 DCOPS Data from MTCC2.
Inference for Regression
University of Wisconsin at Madison
Circles Objectives: Write the Standard Form and General Form of the Equation of a Circle Find the Center and Radius of a Circle in Standard Form and General.
Intra-Tower Tracker Alignment Instrument Analysis Workshop 4
Muon Alignment: Organization
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Status of Transfer Line Reconstruction University of Wisconsin-Madison
Warm up #5.
Status and Plans for Endcap Hardware Alignment
Transfer Line and CSC Rφ Reconstruction
Plus Endcap Transfer Lines
Status of Transfer Line Reconstruction University of Wisconsin-Madison
DCOPS Readout before and during MTCC
University of Wisconsin at Madison
James N. Bellinger 1-November-2007
Alignment of the Silicon Vertex Tracker (SVT)
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Alignment of the PHENIX Silicon Vertex Tracker (VTX) in 2014
^ y = a + bx Stats Chapter 5 - Least Squares Regression
DCOPS Data Quality Studies
Validating Transfer Line Fit University of Wisconsin-Madison
Starting from the Basics
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Finding the Distance Between Two Points.
Circles Objectives: Write the Standard Form and General Form of the Equation of a Circle Find the Center and Radius of a Circle in Standard Form and General.
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Lesson 2.2 Linear Regression.
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Comparing Laser Fit to Barrel Fit University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Volume 114, Issue 5, Pages (March 2018)
CMS Week Muon Alignment
Transfer Line Calculations
University of Wisconsin at Madison
Status report on CATA-01/POLA-01 coincidence measurements
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Circles Objectives: Write the Standard Form and General Form of the Equation of a Circle Find the Center and Radius of a Circle in Standard Form and General.
Presentation transcript:

Status of Transfer Line Reconstruction University of Wisconsin-Madison James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 26-Feb-2010 James N. Bellinger 26-February-2010

Hand Calculations For each Transfer Line For each plane (radial or tangent) 2 lasers (slope and intercept) 8 (or 12) DCOPS averaged peak positions If 2 CCDs, average, if 1 use that value Ignoring laser tilts Fit for 2 slopes and 2 intercepts Fit for 6 (or 10) offsets One of the 12 fits fails

Endcap-only vs “Full” Fits Fit values for the offsets same with either fit to < 10μ for Transfer Line 1 “Full” is better for Transfer Lines when far end peaks are poor I use “Full” (w/ MABs) throughout ME4 stations fixed to offset=0 Disks not part of this Simple chi-squared calculation w/ 14 unks

Contributions to offsets Disk shifts in CMS_x and CMS_y Disk rotations about CMS_z Variation in transfer plate mounting + + + + Disk shift + + James N. Bellinger 19-Feb-2010

Given Offsets, Calculate an estimate for the disk shifts Calculate an estimate for the disk rotations Use the above to estimate the residuals Should be an estimate of mounting variation James N. Bellinger 26-Feb-2010

Estimates for disk parameters (2009) Station CMS_x (mm) CMS_y (mm) Rot_z (mrad) ME+3 -.62 -0.36 -0.90 ME+2 0.05 -0.50 -0.75 ME+1 0.02 -1.37 -0.56 ME-1 -0.63 -1.24 -.40 ME-2 -0.53 -1.12 0.80 ME-3 -0.30 -1.36 0.90 +.67 -.14 +.15 +.23 -.24 +.10 James N. Bellinger 26-Feb-2010

ME2 and ME3 rotations Because I fix the ME4 positions as ideal, other positions are only relative. ME2 and ME3 can reconstruct different shifts/rotations ME4 rotation Different distances: different rotations for ME3 and ME2 James N. Bellinger 26-Feb-2010

Resulting Residuals (2009) Station 1H 1V 2H 2V 3H 3V 4H 4V 5H 5V 6H 6V ME+3 1.16 2.86 -0.50 0.59 -3.05 -0.02 0.29 -1.38 2.10 -0.70 X ME+2 0.50 4.14 -0.47 1.10 -4.04 -1.72 1.40 -0.56 2.61 -0.13 ME+1 -0.85 3.62 -0.24 -1.59 -4.91 -3.68 2.83 -1.58 3.16 -1.89 ME-1 -1.18 2.96 0.24 -1.48 -2.29 -2.02 1.60 -.43 -1.64 -.81 ME-2 -0.76 2.99 -0.26 0.90 -0.37 -0.64 0.77 1.51 0.62 2.33 ME-3 -1.21 0.96 0.68 -1.45 -0.35 -0.98 0.71 -0.75 0.17 1.26 James N. Bellinger 26-Feb-2010

Dave's Transfer Plate Shifts ME+3 0.6 -0.41 0.25 1.99 0.15 1.07 0.66 0.46 -0.45 1.78 1.21 0.64 ME+2 -0.87 -0.47 -0.28 1.26 0.43 0.85 -1.5 -0.59 -0.56 -0.48 1.09 0.04 ME+1 -0.12 0.18 0.96 1.69 -0.08 0.99 -0.88 -0.3 1.62 1.2 0.84 ME-1 -0.09 1.13 -0.86 0.51 -1.34 0.1 -1.71 -0.79 1.4 1.37 ME-2 -0.21 4.16 -0.69 1.85 -0.32 -0.65 1.66 0.32 -0.51 0.12 3.59 0.75 ME-3 -1.33 0.68 -2.12 1 -4.62 -0.61 -0.07 -0.72 0.65 -0.64 -1.25 James N. Bellinger 26-Feb-2010

My Transfer Plate Shifts 1V 2H 2V 3H 3V 4H 4V 5H 5V 6H 6V ME+3 1.21 0.37 0.32 2.06 0.16 2.79 0.7 0.4 -0.31 0.24 -2.07 0.05 ME+2 -0.41 0.2 0.17 1.16 0.38 -0.16 -1.41 -0.72 -0.62 -0.53 -0.47 -1.3 ME+1 -2.12 0.82 1.25 1.89 0.59 0.35 -0.66 1.59 -0.28 -3.54 -1.62 -0.48 ME-1 -0.33 1.72 0.76 3.02 -2.36 -4.19 -0.57 -0.51 ME-2 0.34 3.67 0.54 1.62 0.93 0.53 -1.9 0.49 0.29 -0.56 -0.78 -3.8 ME-3 1.49 1.08 2.04 -0.18 0.95 5.2 -0.93 -1.05 -0.2 1.24 James N. Bellinger 26-Feb-2010

I don't see close agreement I need a better model of the offsets The average of PG horizontal offsets can mimic a rotation of up to .2mrad Better model may not address the problem PG per disk ought to be pretty good Transfer line fit ought to be better Cocoa fits vary much more James N. Bellinger 26-Feb-2010

Next few days Give Himali good Minus Endcap fits for Feb Still some descrepancies Insert photogrammetry offsets for the Transfer Plates and for the disk centers Revisit PG

BACKUP

Transfer Line 1, Horizontal Plane Blue points are data Black points are data plus fit DCOPS offset Lines are fit to lasers Horizontal = tangent to the disk Vertical = radial to the disk Peak position (mm) Fit for offsets as well as laser line Z of station (mm)

Contributions to Offsets Combination of the effects of: DCOPS mounting on transfer plate (small: ignored) Transfer plate mounting on disk O(1mm) Disk positioning in X/Y O(1mm) Disk rotations about Z O(5mm) The ME+4 and ME-4 offsets are fixed to 0 Not included here Poor peaks

Horizontal (tangent) TL 1,2,3,4

Horizontal TL 5,6; Vertical TL 1,2

Vertical (radial) TL 3,4,5,6