1. University of Wisconsin-Madison
Endcap Z Positions
James N. Bellinger
University of Wisconsin-Madison
23-October-2009
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

2. ME+2,3,4 ME+1 ME-2,3,4 Data question
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

3. ME+2,3,4
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

4. From Last Week Z positions of Plus Endcap chamber pins with B=3.8
(Link Run 61)
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

5. Plus Side looks reasonable
ME+1 does not match perfectly with Celso’s fits
Something is wrong with the IR between MAB+3/9 and ME+1/PT5: 15mm different from the rest
ME+2,3,4 look similar to CRAFT08
Chamber centers and tilts were accidentally deleted—reconstructing
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

6. ME+1
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

7. ME+1Tilts Tilt of ME+1/2 chambers at 0T looks fine at 0
are all over the map
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

8. ME+1 Tilts at 3.8T
Difference
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

9. ME+1 Chamber Z
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

10. Redo this w/ Celso’s new results
3.8T (Link run 61)
My Z mm
My Tilt (mrad)
Celso Z mm
Celso tilt (mrad)
2_02
-3.42
-4.188
2_08
-3.47
-4.084
2_14
-3.74
-4.328
2_20
-3.30
-3.229
2_28
-3.34
-4.276
2_32
-3.72
-4.154
Redo this w/ Celso’s new results
Systematic shifts
Deflections more similar
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

11. Minus Side problems Initial positions seem rather far out of line
MAB tilts are not available for all positions
Procedure was
take pre-CRAFT survey positions for 3 disks
Fit and get new TP locations
Use MAB+IR+Zsensor positions differences to calculate field-on positions
Used averages to estimate differences from Cal measurements for MAB tilts
Refit
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

12. Deviations 3.8T to 0T ME-2 ME-3 Inconsistency: chamber
positions wrong in model.
Otherwise ME-2 and ME-3
(and most of ME-4) agree:
The dominant effect is a
shift in disk positions.
ME-4
SLM 1
SLM 2
SLM 3
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

13. Z positions at 3.8T Both SLM 1 and 3 have poor estimates of the Z
shift at PT1 and PT3.
I used average shifts to
estimate what these might
be: uncertainties of order
5mm with this procedure.
SLM 1
SLM 2
SLM 3
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

14. Plan for ME-2,3,4
Use Run81 and UR-0144 to define ME-4 and work inward to define ME-3 and ME-2 using Z-sensor data
Fit
Use fit TP locations and R81 vs R61 to define field- on TP locations
Refit and compare
4 hours?
Repair ME-2/SLM2 model
Hour? Probably something obvious
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

15. Puzzle with ME+3 Problem
Oleg announced mechanical problems at ME+3/PT3 and ME+3/PT6
15-July
I looked for this in the data, and found discontinuities in other locations instead
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

16. Expected discontinuities, but
There ARE
transitions:
but not at PT3
or PT6!
15July
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

17. All ME+3 Z1 sensors near 15Jul
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

18. ME+3 Z2 sensors near 15Jul
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

19. ME+3 Z1 over all CRAFT09 Jump Jump PT1 Jump PT6 Varies a lot 28Jul
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

20. ME+3 Z2 over CRAFT09 Little variation, mostly insignificant Z2 reaches
forward to
Z-tube to
ME+2:
Same disk
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

21. BACKUP
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009

22. YB-2 MAB IR target position
The RMS on MAB tilt contributions is 5.4mm for
the Plus side
PT 1
PT 2
PT 3
PT 4
PT 5
PT 6
Calibrated Z
Calibrated tilt
R32 Z
R32 tilt
R51 Z
R 51 tilt
R61 Z
R61 tilt
Tilt: Calibrated to R32(mrad)
0.087
0.227
-3.351
-1.658
-0.087
-0.122
Tilt: Calibrated to R51(mrad)
-0.018
-1.623
-0.384
-0.68
R51 to R61(mrad)
-0.436
-0.244
-0.437
Z Calib to R32(mm)
-7.87
-1.97
-1.75
-4.3
-0.79
-1.96
Z Calib to R51(mm)
-8.17
-4.71
-4.98
-5.66
0.18
-0.49
R51 to R61(mm)
0.41
2.01
-0.23
-4.33
-6.6
-3.85
James N. Bellinger 23-October-2009