1 / 19

James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 26-March-2010

Transfer Line Fits. James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 26-March-2010. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010. Contents. Determine that my transfer plate centers are better than Dave’s Hand fits give me something to validate Cocoa with. Whose TP centers are better?.

jericho-nen
Télécharger la présentation

James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 26-March-2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Transfer Line Fits James N. Bellinger University of Wisconsin-Madison 26-March-2010 James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010

  2. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Contents • Determine that my transfer plate centers are better than Dave’s • Hand fits give me something to validate Cocoa with

  3. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Whose TP centers are better? • Fit a set of SLMs with Dave’s and with my transfer plate centers at 0T • Find alignment pins positions wrt the disk • Compare with PG of pins wrt disk • Select ME-2 and ME-3 since I did not test them before

  4. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Alignment pin PG looks OK Alignment pins outline the SLMs neatly. One not measured

  5. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 CMS X comparison X_mine-X_PG mean 0.1mm RMS 1.1mm X_dave-X_PG mean 0.6mm RMS 1.9mm ME-2/SLM2 fits poorly for Dave’s #’s. Excluded here.

  6. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 CMS Y and Z comparison Y_Dave-Y_PG Mean 1.2mm RMS 2.6mm Y_Mine-Y-PG Mean 0.3mm RMS 1.2mm dZ is different: clumpy; but note that my clumps are tighter

  7. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Conclusion • My calculated TP centers clearly result in better fits, even if the Cocoa model is not perfect • Note that the Cocoa model does not account for the different chamber distances from the SLM: these need to be introduced by hand

  8. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Reason for Z “clumps” Cross section of SLM Cocoa model has all chambers in the same plane: Wrong but easily fixed up. SLM line 248mm Chambers are at different distances from the SLM laser

  9. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 How Did I Generate Positions? V direction Zsensor H direction SLM DCOPS Transfer DCOPS Center of TP is here Simple and short translation from target to center Three PG targets on top of DCOPS

  10. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Hand Fit Comparison • I create 12 independent fits for the transfer lines • 2 for each transfer line, in the H and V directions (illustrated in next slide) native to the transfer line coordinate system • 0T data from June 2009: Oleg pointed me to a range and a BFI search found some good data: no profiles, unfortunately

  11. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Transfer Line Coordinate system V direction CMS Y H direction Transfer plate “X” direction varies with position CMS X

  12. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Hand Fits Illustration Transfer Line 1 Horizontal (Rphi) coordinate Fit for two laser beams and offsets for each DCOPS Position is wrt center of Transfer Line Blue points are raw data Black are fit positions Distance between points is invariant with fit CMS Z (mm)

  13. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Changes in Cocoa Model • Single Transfer Line • Fix DCOPS internals • Fix DCOPS mounts • Fix disks • Widen TP error

  14. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Offsets for Line 1 MAB calcs not readily comparable yet

  15. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 First pass at residuals No cuts on quality yet 570 microns for this, 440 if exclude point at -3 Residuals still far too large, but agreement with hand fit says we’re on the right track.

  16. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Conclusions • Cocoa reproduces the Endcap part of the hand fit successfully • Possibly better, since it includes beam fan tilt instead of using averages • More work required on MAB: different sizes • If continue to get agreement, this will validate the Cocoa calculation

  17. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Plans • Re-expand scope of fit • Find MABs I can use to constrain the lines • Check MABs for consistency • If agree, calculate Transfer Plate positions in X and Y • Review SLM models with Himali, and generate chamber positions • Converge on a plan for Z • Generate chamber Z and angles

  18. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 BACKUP

  19. James N. Bellinger 26-March-2010 Predicting MAB positions

More Related