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

Data used 0T 3.8T PG Distancemeter 16-Nov average DCOPS 11-Nov event Link from Celso 3.8T Distancemeter 1-4 Nov average DCOPS 27-Oct event PG PG within disk UR-0058 (2006) (Oleg cleaned it up) Supplementary UR-0103 (2008) PG of disk UR-0124 (after Craft) James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

Chamber center Z deviations Cocoa Fit 3.8T - Fit 0T 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 Z deviations Cocoa 3.8T and 0T vs Ideal Fit 0T- Fit Ideal 3.8T-Ideal X Y Z ME+1/3/03 0.58 -2.17 -1.16 -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 -3 -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 -0.01 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 -7.89 ME+1/2/14 -0.07 0.07 -7.74 ME+1/2/20 -0.03 2.47 -0.1 0.37 -5.76 ME+1/2/26 0.92 -0.24 5.77 -2.9 ME+1/2/32 -0.29 -0.27 5.3 -0.4 Cocoa 3.8T Cocoa 0T Cocoa Ideal Ideal fit uses ideal geom and nominal measurements

Fit Ring (average of all chambers) Position Deviations from Ideal 0T-Ideal X Y Z 3.8T- Ideal +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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

Cocoa 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 X-xddd -17 69 Y-yddd -55 52 Z-zddd 8.415 mm 1 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

ME+1/3 chamber tilts (mrad) 3.8T-0T 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 AVERAGE -0.8 1.3 2.1 At disk top At disk bottom Tilts (mrad) determined from DCOPS Z positions at upper and lower ends of each chamber

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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

PG targets and Cocoa 0T Fits: Z of DCOPS dowels XFER PG Pred 1/3Out 1/3In XFer Cocoa Coco- PG HSLM1 6823.5 4 6822.8 9 6823.7 4 6822.0 7 6821.6 7 6822.5 2 -1.47 -1.22 HSLM2 6814.7 9 6809.6 8 6817.5 7 6819.2 8 6818.1 3 6819.5 7 4.49 8.45 2.00 HSLM3 6817.6 7 6816.9 9 6820.1 2 6819.7 8 6818.8 6 6820.8 2 2.11 1.87 0.70 HSLM4 6826.7 9 6825.8 0 6826.1 6 6825.6 8 6825.0 9 6824.3 9 -1.11 -0.72 -1.77 HSLM5 6826.2 7 6817.9 1 6828.2 2 6825.6 2 6824.1 8 6827.5 1 -0.66 6.27 -0.71 HSLM6 6829.1 0 6826.1 7 6828.1 5 6838.0 6 6833.6 0 6829.7 9 8.97 7.43 1.64 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

DCOPS from PG and Cocoa 0T Fit Summary 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 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 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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

3.8T 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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! James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

“Cocoa(0T) vs Ideal” vs “PG vs Ideal” Variation of Deviations PG Apin ME+1/2 ME+1/3 X devs 0 ± 1.2 0 ± 0.8 0 ± 0.7 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 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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

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

Special 0T – normal 0T X Y Z ME+1/3_03 2.13 0.39 0.01 ME+1/3_09 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 PG not available 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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

3.8T 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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

Special 3.8T – Original 3.8T X Y Z ME+1/3_03 2.136 0.388 0.016 -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 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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

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 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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

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

Variation of PG Z for DCOPS Xfer Ave Rms 3 out 3 in 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 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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

DCOPS 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 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 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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

Chamber surface Z’s from PG Apin outer inner Coded DCOPS 3 outer 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 -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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

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 XFer 3 Out 3 In 2 18.98 16.72 17.10 18.26 mm, corrected data values James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

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 XFer 3 Out 3 In 2 18.32 15.79 21.32 23.45 mm, corrected data values 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 James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

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

James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

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

BACKUP MATERIAL James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

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

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

3.8T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal 6 measured centers Overall rotation and translation is removed cm James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

3.8T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal 5 measured centers Overall rotation and translation is removed cm James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009