University of Wisconsin-Madison Cocoa ME+1 Blessing James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 6-April-2009 James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Data used 0T 3.8T PG Distancemeter 16-Nov average DCOPS 11-Nov event Link 15-Oct 3.8T Distancemeter 1-4 Nov average DCOPS 27-Oct event Link 16-Oct 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 20-March-2009

Cocoa Fit Types Ideal 0T 3.8T Special Ideal Geometry for Endcap+Link, default data 0T Data from 0T, Link fit geometry/data from 0T Transfer plates from PG, rest of Endcap ideal 3.8T Data from 3.8T, Link fit geometry/data from 3.8T Special Transfer plates from PG, initial chamber pos PG James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Cocoa Hierarchy: A CMS SLM Transfer Plate Chamber 3 type Laser SLM Ref DCOPS Transfer Ref DCOPS Laser Z-sensor Chamber 3 type Outer DCOPS Inner DCOPS James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Cocoa Hierarchy: B CMS SLM-continued Chamber 2 type Link Ring Outer sensorbox Outer ASPD DCOPS Inner sensorbox Inner ASPD Link Ring Link lasers MAB Z-sensor laser target James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Cocoa Ideal Fit vs DDD Only 6 entries. Cocoa Ideal minus DDD geometry Ring 3 only Cocoa Ideal geometry fit is fine: “chi-squared” is 1.4 with 872 “degrees of freedom” Cocoa pos – DDD pos Mean, microns RMS, X -17 69 Y -55 52 Z -7 1 James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Chamber Z deviations Cocoa 3.8T and 0T vs Ideal 0T Fit -Ideal 3.8T Fit-Ideal X Y Z ME+1/3/03 2.78 -2.00 -1.24 2.77 -1.97 -3.17 ME+1/3/09 2.87 -0.77 -4.50 2.73 -0.73 -4.70 ME+1/3/14 -1.12 0.37 -3.39 -0.98 0.50 -3.60 ME+1/3/20 -2.52 -1.13 1.36 -2.60 -0.84 ME+1/3/27 0.95 -2.22 2.54 1.33 -2.32 -0.62 ME+1/3/33 -0.43 -1.60 8.25 0.10 -1.09 -0.92 ME+1/2/02 1.30 -3.07 1.06 1.38 -3.35 -7.18 ME+1/2/08 2.94 -1.96 -0.68 3.00 -1.95 -8.04 ME+1/2/14 0.59 -1.21 -1.00 0.72 -1.08 -7.81 ME+1/2/20 -1.18 -0.46 2.36 -0.20 -5.87 ME+1/2/26 1.39 0.05 5.55 1.50 0.02 -3.11 ME+1/2/32 0.04 -0.26 5.21 -0.07 -0.40 -3.74 Cocoa 3.8T Cocoa 0T Cocoa Ideal Ideal fit uses ideal geom and nominal measurements HSLM6 bad due to blocked IR target James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Chamber center Z deviations Cocoa Fit 3.8T - Fit 0T mm Fit 0T - P.G. ME+1/3/03 -1.93 -1.39 ME+1/3/09 -0.20 0.33 ME+1/3/14 -0.21 0.25 ME+1/3/20 -2.20 -1.81 ME+1/3/27 -3.16 -3.27 ME+1/3/33 -9.17 4.06 ME+1/2/02 -8.24 -0.90 ME+1/2/08 -7.36 1.94 ME+1/2/14 -6.81 2.82 ME+1/2/20 -8.23 -5.34 ME+1/2/26 -8.67 0.45 ME+1/2/32 -8.96 4.02 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 Rms=1.4 Rms=2.9 James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Fit Ring (average of all chambers) Position Deviations from Ideal 0T-Ideal X Y Z 3.8T- Ideal +1/3 .59 -1.17 -1.05 .65 -1.07 -2.59 +1/2 1.01 -1.33 1.46 1.07 -1.31 -6.40 PG (disk) .58 -1.37 0.57 NA James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

ME+1/3 chamber tilts (mrad) 3.8T-0T ME+1/3/03 -0.40 2.43 2.83 ME+1/3/09 -0.71 1.85 2.56 ME+1/3/14 -0.88 0.89 1.77 ME+1/3/20 0.39 2.04 1.65 ME+1/3/27 -1.73 -0.55 1.18 ME+1/3/33 2.10 -2.10 AVERAGE -0.67 1.33 2.00 At disk top At disk bottom Tilts (mrad) determined from DCOPS Z positions at upper and lower ends of each chamber James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

PG targets and Cocoa 0T Fits: Z of DCOPS dowels XFER PG Pred 1/3Out 1/3In XFer Cocoa Coco- PG HSLM1 6823.54 6822.89 6823.74 6822.10 6821.68 6822.37 -0.79 -1.21 -1.37 HSLM2 6814.79 6809.68 6817.57 6819.32 6818.16 6819.37 4.53 8.48 1.80 HSLM3 6817.67 6816.99 6820.12 6819.99 6819.11 6820.63 2.32 2.12 0.51 HSLM4 6826.79 6825.80 6826.16 6825.60 6824.97 6824.30 -1.19 -0.83 -1.86 HSLM5 6826.27 6817.91 6828.22 6825.74 6827.29 -0.53 6.39 -0.93 HSLM6 6829.10 6826.17 6828.15 6837.88 6833.36 6829.74 8.78 7.19 1.59 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 James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

DCOPS from PG vs Cocoa 0T Fit Summary DCOPS Dowel positions: 0T Cocoa fit – predicted from PG of DCOPS targets Reference: mean= 0.87, rms=2.21mm ME+1/3_outer: mean= 2.99, rms=3.86mm ME+1/3_inner: mean= -0.37, rms=1.34mm HSLM6 is not included RMS is large, and at least partly attributable to PG problems “Reference” = reference DCOPS on transfer plate James N. Bellinger 20-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 20-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 20-March-2009

3.8T Cocoa ME+1/3 Chamber Centers mm, Cocoa errors X Y Z ME+1/3_03 5595.39 ± .15 2033.51 ± .28 6864.27 ± .09 ME+1/3_09 1036.26 ± .30 5860.37 ± .17 6862.74 ± .09 ME+1/3_14 -3826.66 ± .24 4559.53 ± .21 6863.84 ± .09 ME+1/3_20 -5863.67 ± .12 -1034.45 ± .30 6866.60 ± .09 ME+1/3_27 -1032.23 ± .30 -5863.41 ± .12 6866.83 ± .09 James N. Bellinger 20-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 20-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 20-March-2009

ME+1/3 deviation changes with field 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 Max dev =1.6mm Animated cm James N. Bellinger 20-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 20-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 20-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 20-March-2009

Special (PG) 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 Rms=.15 James N. Bellinger 20-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 20-March-2009

Special (PG) 3.8T – Ideal 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 20-March-2009

Cocoa Input All measurements to be blessed use PG initial starting positions for transfer plate PG initial starting positions for chambers Link fit position for link disk Link fit position for MAB laser line Calibrated ASPD positions wrt P4 Calibrated DCOPS CCD positions wrt dowel James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Cloud on the horizon: ME+1/2 chamber Z centers Fits My B=0 Celso B=0 Diff B=0 My B=3.8 Celso B=3.8 Diff B=3.8 ME+1/2_02 6770.54 6771.40 .86 6762.30 6763.18 .88 ME+1/2_08 6768.80 6769.58 .78 6761.44 6762.21 .77 ME+1/2_14 6768.48 6769.15 .67 6761.67 6762.28 .61 ME+1/2_20 6771.84 6771.75 -.09 6763.61 6763.46 -.15 ME+1/2_26 6775.03 6775.54 .51 6766.36 6766.84 .48 ME+1/2_32 6774.70 6774.91 .21 6765.74 6765.97 .23 James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Why the difference? Not sure yet Change with field is the same James N. Bellinger 20-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 20-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 6866.20 -0.40 6864.27 2.43 ME+1/3_09 6862.94 -0.71 6862.74 1.85 ME+1/3_14 6864.05 -0.88 6863.84 0.89 ME+1/3_20 6868.80 0.39 6866.60 2.04 ME+1/3_27 6869.99 -1.73 6866.83 -0.55 Average 6866.50 -0.67 6864.86 1.33 Δ from nominal -0.94mm -0.67mrad -4.08mm 1.33mrad James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Photogrammetry errors for the Z of the alignment pins are not 300μ Evaluate the PG Photogrammetry errors for the Z of the alignment pins are not 300μ Loveless says the pins were not inserted to nominal depth James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

PG targets on chambers Targets on DCOPS (not used in next slide) Targets on alignment pins Coded targets on chambers Use alignment pins to define chamber axis Use X/Y of coded target to predict a Z Compare predicted w/ measured Z James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Coded Target Z – Predicted Z ME+1/3 chambers Alignment pins used to predict Z of coded target given its X/Y Rms=1.4mm Looks like a single distribution, NOT a narrow one with a few typos mm James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Crosscheck coded targets Oleg says some were on wrong chambers Use his corrected table Look at deviation of coded target from alignment pin axis line Nothing looks badly wrong; largest deviation is 145mm from axis (min 75mm) James N. Bellinger 20-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 20-March-2009

Variation of PG Z for DCOPS Ref 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 20-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 20-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 20-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 Rms=.53 Rms=.37 James N. Bellinger 20-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. Not much variation XFer 3 Out 3 In 2 18.98 16.72 17.10 18.26 mm, corrected data values James N. Bellinger 20-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 coded error=300μ, Apin error is 2mm If the variation is due to random errors: for a DCOPS target at Transfer Plate: 140μ Outer chamber edge: 470μ Inner chamber edge: 350μ Disregard PG measures with large disagreements with either other PG measurements or with data? James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Displays Omitting lines illustrating chamber surface Triangles show the slope well enough PG information not displayed Diagram is very cluttered already HSLM1-5 are animated to show 0 to 3.8T shifts HSLM6 has bad data for the DCOPS at 3.8T and bad Z information for the distancemeter James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Distancemeter and dists Chamber surface estimates Red=Real Green=Sim DCOPS dowels Chamber surface estimates Red=Real Green=Sim ME12 ASPD IR target MAB ASPD ASPD P4 Animated James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Animated James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Animated James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Animated James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Animated James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

3.8T is bad IR target obscured, Z is bad James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Animated James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Animated James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Animated James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Animated James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Animated James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

3.8T is bad IR target obscured James N. Bellinger 20-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 6866.20 -0.40 6864.27 2.43 ME+1/3_09 6862.94 -0.71 6862.74 1.85 ME+1/3_14 6864.05 -0.88 6863.84 0.89 ME+1/3_20 6868.80 0.39 6866.60 2.04 ME+1/3_27 6869.99 -1.73 6866.83 -0.55 Average 6866.50 -0.67 6864.86 1.33 Ave Δ from nominal -0.94mm -0.67mrad -4.08mm 1.33mrad James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Caveats The average Z position omits hSLM6, and can therefore be biased wrt disk rotations I have no error estimate for the tilts yet Error estimates for the Z’s follow James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Error Estimates Cocoa estimates the error in Z to be 90 microns Probably the usual artificial error fitters’ return I can’t trust the PG values for Alignment pins There are problems with PG values for the DCOPS targets The PG coded targets require some convolution to get to the appropriate Z location: show later James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Error Estimates: outer Z The outer position Z measurement is limited by MAB laser line uncertainty Assumed perfect Tolerances in machining 50 microns is what we usually claim Tolerances in carbon fiber thickness 100 microns maximum → 30 microns rms Paper target thickness 50 microns? Tolerances in transfer plate 50 microns Measurement error Seems to be negligible Add in quadrature for 90 microns James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Error Estimates: Inner Z Inner Z measurement uncertainty driven by mismatch with Celso’s fit We agree to a few dozen microns for ASPD positions, but not on the chamber center! This is an artificially large error estimate Assume Link system Z estimates are perfect Ratio of distances scales the effect on ME1/3 chambers by .36 James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Error Estimates: Inner Numbers Average disagreement w/ Celso on chamber center 470 microns (call this systematic) RMS of disagreement 350 microns Contribution to error on ME+1/3 center is 36% (ratio of distances) 130 micron plus 170 micron systematic error James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Error Estimates: Fit Summary Quadrature of inner mismatch, outer error, cocoa fit 180 microns with 170 micron systematic error Assumes perfect Link results for MAB and LinkDisk James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Error Estimates: Coded Targets Coded targets are not at center Use fit Z and tilt to predict Z at coded target position (about 110 micron change) Mean difference = .387mm (ignore hSLM6) RMS = 1.47mm Known uncertainties: Post-craft disk rotation .6mm Post-craft disk position .5mm Nominal coded target Z .3mm Worse than DCOPS target ests James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

DCOPS PG targets For a DCOPS target at Transfer Plate: 140μ Outer chamber edge: 470μ Inner chamber edge: 350μ Chamber center variation of 410 μ Exaggerated because of DCOPS PG errors James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Error Summary From Cocoa and boundary estimates From Coded Target PG 180 microns plus 170 microns systematic From Coded Target PG 1470 microns plus 390 microns systematic From DCOPS target PG 410 microns The Cocoa + boundary estimate is probably too conservative I don’t know why the coded target PG is so large James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

Tilt Error No estimate as yet James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

BACKUP MATERIAL James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

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 (Post-Craft numbers from UR-0124) James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

PG Issues Photogrammetry is not always correct James N. Bellinger 20-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 20-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 20-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 20-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 20-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 20-March-2009

Comparisons of Ideal with Cocoa Rings James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

0T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal 6 measured centers Overall rotation and translation is removed cm James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

0T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal 5 measured centers Overall rotation and translation is removed cm James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

3.8T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal 6 measured centers Overall rotation and translation is removed cm James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

3.8T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal 5 measured centers Overall rotation and translation is removed cm James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009