1James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
ME+1 status and Endcap ZME+1 status and Endcap Z
James N. Bellinger
University of Wisconsin at Madison
4-Feb-2009
2James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
Endcap Z MeasurementsEndcap Z Measurements
Do we believe IR Z-sensor results?
1. MAB sensor position
2. Offsets to IR target
3. IR sensor data
4. Compare with expected
3James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
MAB Sensor PositionMAB Sensor Position
Relying on Celso’s fits for the two sensor centers
Extrapolate slightly to IR sensor radius—effect is small
4James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
Offsets to TargetOffsets to Target
Calibrated numbers for distance from PG4 to base of sensor: taken from Link SDF file
Thickness of skin: varies from 3.04 to 3.14mm: I use 3.14
Thickness of target: ignored
5James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
IR sensor PositionIR sensor Position
Field Off to On changes look similar, if include dips
.6
.3
6James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
Comparing w/ Ideal Transfer PlateComparing w/ Ideal Transfer Plate
Name Nom Ideal 0T 3.8T Ideal-Nom 0T-Nom Y 3.8T-Nom
distancemeter_p11 6847.70 6847.701 6847.4537 6848.3519 0.001 -0.2463 0.6519
distancemeter_p12 6847.70 6847.7006 6846.3914 6848.7085 0.0006 -1.3086 1.0085
distancemeter_p13 6847.70 6847.6995 6845.4289 6848.169 -0.0005 -2.2711 0.469
distancemeter_p14 6847.70 6847.6997 6851.6001 6852.4654 -0.0003 3.9001 4.7654
distancemeter_p15 6847.70 6847.6997 6851.5236 6849.6702 -0.0003 3.8236 1.9702
distancemeter_p16 6847.70 6847.7012 6862.781 6863.5609 0.0012 15.081 15.8609
7James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
Using PG-corrected Transfer PlateUsing PG-corrected Transfer Plate
Name ZPG Hand 0T Fit 0THand
3.8TFit 3.8T
Fit0-ZPG
Fit3.8-ZPG
Fit0-Hand0
Fit3.8-Hand3.8
dm_p11 6848.48 6847.42 6847.4537 6849 6848.3519 -1.0263 -0.1281 0.0332 -0.6506
dm_p12 6845.73 6846.48 6846.3914 6849.58 6848.7085 0.6614 2.9785 -0.0893 -0.8742
dm_p13 6847.53 6845.37 6845.4289 6848.26 6848.169 -2.1011 0.639 0.0626 -0.0893
dm_p14 6850.03 6851.54 6851.6001 6852.68 6852.4654 1.5701 2.4354 0.0609 -0.2138
dm_p15 6843.18 6851.11 6851.5236 6849.75 6849.6702 8.3436 6.4902 0.4094 -0.084
dm_p16 6847.36 6864.27 6862.781 6864.04 6863.5609 15.421 16.2009 -1.4844 -0.4755
8James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
Using PostCraft Tilt/ShiftUsing PostCraft Tilt/Shift
Name ZPG Hand 0T Fit 0THand
3.8T
Fit 3.8T Fit0-PG Fit3.8-PG Fit0-Hand0Fit3.8-
Hand3.8
dm_p11 6847.40 6847.42 6847.4537 6849 6848.3519 0.0537 0.9519 0.0332 -0.6506
dm_p12 6838.98 6846.48 6846.3914 6849.58 6848.7085 7.4114 9.7285 -0.0893 -0.8742
dm_p13 6841.76 6845.37 6845.4289 6848.26 6848.169 3.6689 6.409 0.0626 -0.0893
dm_p14 6850.80 6851.54 6851.6001 6852.68 6852.4654 0.8001 1.6654 0.0609 -0.2138
dm_p15 6849.88 6851.11 6851.5236 6849.75 6849.6702 1.6436 -0.2098 0.4094 -0.084
dm_p16 6853.39 6864.27 6862.781 6864.04 6863.5609 9.391 10.1709 -1.4844 -0.4755
9James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
Conclusions wrt Endcap ZConclusions wrt Endcap Z
None at the moment.
Not sure if Distancemeter at Pt6 is reading correctly
Not sure why the others shift so much when trying to take disk tilt into account
10James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
Z positions w/o CocoaZ positions w/o Cocoa
Illustrate w/o Cocoa
Know MAB 2D sensor position
Know distance to distancemeter
Know ME1/2 2D sensor position
Using chamber geometry, predict ME1/3 positions
11James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
ME+1 Z positions: HSLM1 Field onME+1 Z positions: HSLM1 Field on
Position of Reference DCOPS Center• 6665.74 MAB
• +34.2675 To target, calibrated+skin thickness
• +148.983 Distancemeter distance
• -24.424 DM dowel to DCOPS dowel, CAD
• -41.27 DCOPS dowel to DCOPS center, CAD
• 6783.291 Expected CMS z
12James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
Z Position of ME12 DCOPS centerZ Position of ME12 DCOPS center
Contributions• 6631.44 Celso ASPD Z of chamber at PG4
• 3.92 effect of chamber tilt
• 135.8 offset PG4 to surface of chamber
• -41.35 offset DCOPS dowel to surface
• 41.276 offset DCOPS center to dowel
• 6771.09 Expected CMS Z
13James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
U/D data wrt CenterU/D data wrt Center
-0.879 Reference
1.398 1_3_03 outer
-0.780 1_3_03 inner
0.790 1_2_02 reference (upside down)
14James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
Predicting Z at 1_3_03Predicting Z at 1_3_03
Slope of laser line = .004938
Intercept = 6747.847
3_03 outer 6781.552
3_03 inner 6773.043
Offset to surface85.44
Surface Z at 3_03 outer 6868.39
Surface Z at 3_03 inner 6857.70
10.7mm change??
15James N. Bellinger 4-Feb-2009
Comparing w/ PGComparing w/ PG
-697.44 coded target at center of 3_03
7565.6 PostCraft Z center of YE+1
6868.16 PG est for average (center)
6868.39 My est for outer
6857.70 My est for inner
Outer is close to reference
Suggests that outer Z is good, inner Z needs work
Est changes to 6866.7 for PG if I include tilts