[Clas12_rich] Macro issue resolved - spot test for RICH mirrors 1 and 2

[balossino at fe.infn.it]

Hi Tyler,
that's a good news, I was about to reply.

Yes, it is right that the fit-d0 values are greater than the minimum
observed-d0 values because of the fit. I would say (and Marco Contalbrigo
or Marco Mirazita can correct me) that in this kind of analysis the fit is
not necessary, the most important thing is to find a minimum and I would
say that what you have found seems reasonable.

The measurements of the mirror 2 are still weird, but maybe it can be
correleted with the use of the sensor support.

If you need anything else we can set a skype meeting tomorrow.

Thank you for performing this analysis,
Ilaria

> Hello all,
>
> The issue mentioned in my previous email with the d0-fit-z0-pdf macro has
> been resolved. The scan.txt file was not named correctly. After naming it
> in the correct format, the fit macro was able to be run. The plots of the
> fit are attached. In the plots, the x-axis is the scale on the CCD mount.
> This number was added to the distance between the wall and the start of
> the scale on the CDD mount to get the z measurements below.
>
> Mirror 1
> d0 = 1.891 mm
> z = 2725.796 mm
>
> Mirror 3
> d0 = 1.700 mm
> z = 2725.013 mm
>
> These fit-d0 values are greater than the minimum observed-d0 values. Is
> this to be expected because how the macro fits the data?
>
> Best regards,
> Tyler
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_rich mailing list
> Clas12_rich at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rich
>