PC-2015-08-13a¶

Can we do an update on the alignment/etc analysis at 14:00 on Thursday 13th August, in the POD or on:

http://mice.iit.edu/phonebridge.html

• Tracker-to-tracker alignment - Melissa/Chris Hunt
• Tracker alignment to field - Chris Rogers
• Cut-based beam selection vs 2015/01 data - Tanaz/Scott Wilbur
• Full PID vs 2015/01 data - Celeste

Cheers,
Chris

Notes¶

Scott Wilbur
Tanaz Mohayai
Pavel Snopok
Celeste Pidcott
Victoria Blackmore
Paul Kyberd
Chris Rogers
Chris Hunt

• Tracker is keyed so that it cannot rotate to sub-mrad precision
• Upstream tracker vs TOF1 is too small when we insist on TKD hits; ACTION to remove TKD hits from that analysis
• Blackmore notes:
  • GetSlabX() returns a horizontal slab i.e. vertical coordinate
  • GetSlabY() returns a vertical slab i.e. horizontal coordinate
  • Durga says this is consistent across all the TOFs
  • Looking down the beamline, vertical slabs are labelled left to right 0 to N; corresponds to 0 is most negative X
  • horizontal slabs are labelled bottom to top 0 to N; corresponds to 0 is lowest Y
• Celeste has conversion code; Blackmore has conversion code; pic in #1730; should be a function in TOFSpacePoint
• Downstream tracker vs TOF2 funny correlations between TOF2; there is 120 degree rotation and sign flip in x and y; looks like two planes have been swapped?
  • Presumably change the MC?? Chris Hunt will try swapping planes around
  • RMS residuals are now on the order 30 - 40 mm; alignment calculations are in there also
• Plan to patch MAUS

• Rogers - see slides
  • Check archiver for magnet currents (sliced by time)
  • Be careful to define Ɵx, Ɵy Rogers to define convention

• Mohayai - see slides
• Looks like PID variables are not in the data structure
  • Chase Francois to make sure that the PID variables are in the data structure

• Wilbur - see slides
• Note mismatch between TOF01 and TOF12? These are correlated...