<html><body><div style="font-family: tahoma,new york,times,serif; font-size: 14pt; color: #009900"><div>hi brian,<br></div><div>good job. </div><div>thanks for double checking, i appreciate that very much.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>patrizia sent an e-mail that the lengths are critical, there is only 3mm tolerance.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>so perhaps sandro et.al could advise us and we can come up with a plan of how to survey the length dimensions to get a real precise value on the length.<span style="display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px;" id="transmark"></span> <br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>anyway, someone (i forget who ) from INFN is going to be here, so we could get together and discuss these issues. <br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>have a nice long weekend, to one and all.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>amrit<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__"><div data-marker="__HEADERS__"><b>From: </b>"Brian Eng" <beng@jlab.org><br><b>To: </b>"Tomassini Sandro" <sandro.tomassini@lnf.infn.it><br><b>Cc: </b>"clas12 rich" <clas12_rich@jlab.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, July 1, 2016 5:43:53 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Clas12_rich] Mirror 5C-Autocad3D measurements<br></div><div><br></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__">Doing a least squares fit I get pretty much the same numbers for mirror 5C as the survey group did. All the numbers are in units of mm.<br><br>Back surface sphere radius: 2735.65632782 with RMS of 0.0891485148111<br>Sphere center: 1757.05061408, -1419.56605411, -0.169281068618<br><br>Mirror surface sphere radius: 2696.26510045 with RMS of 0.0696200623859<br>Sphere center: 1746.89907226, -1410.89622076, -0.0705877320044<br><br>It should be noted that their calculated center points are off about ~10 in X,Y which might explain getting a difference of ~35 instead of the expected 25.<br><br>I've put the code and data file (the same as the one Jim sent) here if anyone wants to mess with it.<br><br>https://userweb.jlab.org/~beng/RICH/<br><br>It isn't very elegant, but it should be fairly obvious what it is doing.<br><br>> On Jul 1, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Tomassini Sandro <sandro.tomassini@lnf.infn.it> wrote:<br>> <br>> Hi Pablo<br>> <br>> Thanks for your analisys. As you can see the outer radius is smaller than the inner one...<br>> It should happen the contrary.<br>> Next time we should distribute better the measured points on the mirror surface.<br>> Have a nice weekend<br>> Sandro<br>> <br>> Dr Eng. S. Tomassini<br>> <br>> Il 01/lug/2016 21:13 Pablo Campero <campero@jlab.org> ha scritto:<br>>> <br>>> Hello Sandro, <br>>> I took your suggestion and I made the calculations of the radius for the inner and outer surfaces, I took more points (21). It looks better now. The results that I got were: <br>>> -Mirror Surface (Inner): <2694>±81[mm] <br>>> -Back surface(Outer): <2678>±73[mm] <br>>> -For both surfaces the St.DEV. is ~3% of the average. <br>>> <br>>> Both values cover the theoretical specs. I propose in the future, if is necessary; a program .can be written to take all combinations (32*32*21*21=451584) of the measurements. <br>>> Have a nice weekend. <br>>> <br>>> <br>>> Best Regards <br>>> Pablo Campero <br>>> Detector Support Group. <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Clas12_rich mailing list<br>> Clas12_rich@jlab.org<br>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rich<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Clas12_rich mailing list<br>Clas12_rich@jlab.org<br>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rich<br></div></div></body></html>