LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for HPS-SOFTWARE Archives


HPS-SOFTWARE Archives

HPS-SOFTWARE Archives


HPS-SOFTWARE@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HPS-SOFTWARE Home

HPS-SOFTWARE Home

HPS-SOFTWARE  July 2015

HPS-SOFTWARE July 2015

Subject:

Re: [Hps-analysis] July 24 DAWG Meeting

From:

"Nelson, Timothy Knight" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Software for the Heavy Photon Search Experiment <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:25:18 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines)

and the top?

> On Jul 24, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Maruyama, Takashi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> According to the survey file, L123_Ulower_modules.RTN, the bottom wire to the Si edge is 7.8399 mm, while the nominal distance is 7.8740 mm. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sho Uemura
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 12:45 PM
> To: Nelson, Timothy Knight
> Cc: Graf, Norman A.; [log in to unmask]; hps-software
> Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] July 24 DAWG Meeting
> 
> We have survey measurements for the wires. I would need to work with Takashi to compare them to nominals.
> 
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Nelson, Timothy Knight wrote:
> 
>> By the way, I am thinking more and more that the bottom is a little more open than the nominal position.  If you will all recall, in order to get top/bottom wires to agree on beam position, we assumed a pretty drastic vacuum sag for the bottom motor. However, making them agree was a condition that cannot be guaranteed, as built.  At face value, your slide 9 might indicate that the bottom was open w.r.t. nominal by about 125-150 microns at layer 1.   This would also have a real impact on bottom tracking efficiencies.
>> 
>> Sho? did you produce results of the surveyed positions of the wires?  I know you checked that they were repeatable, but I don?t recall whether you actually took measurements that allow us to correct their as-built positions.  Frankly? this is a long overdue question on my part, but things were confusing enough back when we were trying to sort this out?
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Nelson, Timothy Knight <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Norman,
>>> 
>>> OK, let me see if I understand.  On slide 11 you are projecting back to the known z position of the wire and asking what the y intercept is there.  You find a 3mm discrepancy between the two sides.  So, how does that indicate non-coplanarity of sensors?  It seems more likely that the sensors are in the same plane but slot/hole are shifted laterally (in-plane) relative to one another.  I think we know what have <50 micron shifts like this from survey, but that?s about the most it can be.  This could also be caused by relative rotation of L1 and L2 around the beam axis.  A 2-d plot of this as a function of position in L1 (or L2) would be illuminating: whether there is a step in crossing from the hole to the slot side or whether there is a trend as the hits in L1 and L2 move along the sensor from one end of the module to the other.
>>> 
>>> Looks like there will be a lot to learn from this data, which is good news!
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Graf, Norman A. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>> Thanks for your comments. I was looking for you to discuss the 
>>>> physical geometry to see what constraints there are on the slot/hole 
>>>> module coplanarity. Although the slot module statistics are low the 
>>>> differences looked  statistically significant. And those comparisons 
>>>> had layers 1-2-3 in common. The projections back to the wire are 
>>>> roughly
>>>> 2.5 meters, so it wouldn't take much.
>>>> Your comments about the opening angle are spot-on. On my list for 
>>>> today is to fit modules 1-2-3 and project into the four quadrants of layers 4-5-6.
>>>> Norman
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Nelson, Timothy Knight
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:10 AM
>>>> To: Graf, Norman A.
>>>> Cc: Nathan Baltzell; [log in to unmask]; hps-software
>>>> Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] July 24 DAWG Meeting
>>>> 
>>>> Interesting, Norman.  I'm not sure I understand the non-coplanarity comment on the last slide.  Hole/slot sensors can't be in different planes by very much, a couple hundred microns at most dominated by non-flatness of the half modules.  Also, anything that find shifts that are bigger than about 100 microns in x-y (I see >mm lots of places) or a few hundred microns in z from the geometry needs to be looked at very carefully, since that flies in the face of all other data, even if you are using the v1 detector.  Shifts even that large in v2 would indicate problems in the survey measurements or mistakes in implementing them in the v2 detector (neither is completely impossible).
>>>> 
>>>> What's being done for multiple scattering errors here?  If you want to get meaningful results (e.g. unbiased residuals with a layer left out) you really need to run GBL or change the way multiple scattering is dealt with in seedtracker. Otherwise, relative misalignments in layers 1-2, which are close together (by ~an order of magnitude relative to the full SVT length) and are assigned small errors in seedtracker, will dominate the track parameters and bias what you see everywhere else.  Obviously, the former (using GBL) is much more desirable.
>>>> 
>>>> Finally, once GBL is working, probably the first thing that needs to be done (both here and with field on data) is use the data to figure out the actual opening angle of the detector, since uncertainty in that is now expected to be the dominant alignment uncertainty by far.  Without having that right, trying to point to the wire is fraught with difficulties and you can really only look at internal consistency.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Tim
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Graf, Norman A. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>> Apologies for the SNAFU this morning. I've posted my slides to the meeting page on confluence.
>>>>> Bottom line is that the data seems to be of sufficient quality and 
>>>>> quantity that we should be able to derive some alignment parameters 
>>>>> for the SVT independently of the field-on data. I'll give an update next week. But in the meantime, please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
>>>>> Enjoy the weekend,
>>>>> Norman
>>>>> ###################################################################
>>>>> ###
>>>>> ##
>>>>> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>>>>> 
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
>>>>> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A
>>>>> =1
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> #####################################################################
>>> ###
>>> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>>> 
>>> To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
>>> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hps-analysis mailing list
>> [log in to unmask]
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis
>> 
> 
> ########################################################################
> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
> 
> To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use