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

2. 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 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Cocoa Fit Ideal vs DDD Only 6 entries. Cocoa Ideal minus DDD geometry
Ring 3 only
TODO: where did mm 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. PG targets and Cocoa 0T Fits: Z of DCOPS dowels
XFER
PG Pred
1/3Out
1/3In
XFer
Cocoa
Coco- PG
HSLM1
-1.47
-1.22
HSLM2
4.49
8.45
2.00
HSLM3
2.11
1.87
0.70
HSLM4
-1.11
-0.72
-1.77
HSLM5
-0.66
6.27
-0.71
HSLM6
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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 3.8T Cocoa 1/3 Chamber Centers
mm, Cocoa errors X Y Z
ME+1/3_03
± .37
± .31
± .13
ME+1/3_09
± .30
± .38
± .13
ME+1/3_14
± .25
± .23
± .37
ME+1/3_20
± .16
± .30
± .37
ME+1/3_27
± .30
± .38
± .13
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. “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

23. 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

24. ME+1/3 0T Cocoa fits using PG startX Y Z
ME+1/3_03
2033.7
ME+1/3_09
ME+1/3_14
ME+1/3_20
ME+1/3_27
6870
ME+1/3_33
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

25. 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

26. 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

27. 3.8T Initial Chamber Pos from PGX Y Z
ME+1/3_03
ME+1/3_09
ME+1/3_14
ME+1/3_20
ME+1/3_27
ME+1/3_33
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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
-0.5
1.53
ME+1/3_09
-0.83
1.99
ME+1/3_14
-1.14
1.09
ME+1/3_20
0.41
2.63
ME+1/3_27
6870
-1.93
-0.69
Average
-0.8
1.3
Δ from nominal
-0.85mm
-0.8mrad
-4.08mm
1.3mrad
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

31. 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

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

33. 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

34. Variation of PG Z for DCOPS
Xfer
Ave
Rms
3 out
3 in
HSLM1
0.169
0.097
0.193
HSLM2
0.037
0.385
0.198
HSLM3
0.054
0.067
0.197
HSLM4
0.040
0.099
HSLM5
0.082
0.737
0.148
HSLM6
0.092
0.238
0.302
PG target position 3-point ave/rms
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

35. DCOPS PG Variation Along Line
HSLM1
HSLM2
HSLM3
HSLM4
HSLM5
HSLM6
Ave Z
Rms Z
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

36. 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

37. 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

38. Chamber surface Z’s from PG
Apin
outer
inner
Coded
DCOPS
3 outer
3 inner
Diff outer
Diff inner
HSLM1
HSLM2 NA
-0.84
HSLM3
-696.3
HSLM4
-0.09
HSLM5
HSLM6
-700.4
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

44. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

45. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

46. James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

47. 3.8T is bad IR target obscured, Z is bad
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

48. BACKUP
MATERIAL
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

49. 0T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal 6 measured centers Overall rotation
and translation is
removed cm
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

50. 0T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal 5 measured centers Overall rotation
and translation is
removed cm
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

51. 3.8T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal 6 measured centers Overall rotation
and translation is
removed cm
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009

52. 3.8T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal 5 measured centers Overall rotation
and translation is
removed cm
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009