Chris,
Any thoughts on how much the field would have to be shifted to explain
the data? I surveyed the field probe using the same techniques and
coordinate system as the wire chambers. I'd say we know the locations
of the field measurements to better than 2 mm in general, and better
than 1 mm in many places.
Karen
Christopher Crawford wrote:
> Some comments:
> --Chris
> _______________________________________
>
> TA-53/MPF-1/D111 P-23 MS H803
> LANL, Los Alamos, NM 87545
> 505-665-9804(o) 665-4121(f) 662-0639(h)
> _______________________________________
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2006, at 21:52:23, Michael Kohl wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> we had a long meeting last Wednesday which was not always
>> delightful. Here's my recollection, I apologize for its length. Read
>> it nevertheless.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Geometry transformations
>> +Chris' plots (gif)
>> +Chris established and tested code that calculates derivatives of
>> reconstructed variables with respect to shifts and rotations of the
>> entire wire chamber in each sector.
>
>
> The dZ/dZ ~ 1.17 (kin. offset / geom. offset) for electrons was
> indeed due to dBfield/dZ. It went back to 1 after testing with
> TBLFieldRho (constant azimuthal field). That brings up the point
> that another significant geometrical shift to be considered is a
> translation of the B-field (left and right sectors independently,
> since they were surveyed separately).
>
> I've verified azimuthal rotations in the geometry (i.e.
> GeomWC.LeftOffset=(1-cos(phi)),sin(phi),0,0,phi[deg],0 ), but am
> still trying to verify that dPhi/dPhi=1.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:33 EST