[Dsg-rich] RICH - reflectivity test station calibration stability results

[Mindy Leffel]

I see highlighting:


On 7/18/2017 6:28 PM, Amrit Yegneswaran wrote:
> good work tyler.
> w.r.t. line #8: (see below, i reformatted your e-mail), i don't see 
> any highlighting in the excel sheet.
> don't understand where you come up with the <1% error you quote?
>
> fix your significant figures, do let excel decide!
>
> w.r.t. line #13: perhaps initially the calibration may be dependent 
> (you didn't take a measurement as soon as you turned it on, did you?), 
> but once the lamp has warmed up, the calibration doesn't  change.
>
> finally, calculate the confidence level of your measurement.
>
> amrit
>
> am
>
>
> w.r.t. #13
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Tyler Lemon" <tlemon at jlab.org>
> *To: *"dsg-rich" <dsg-rich at jlab.org>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:43:39 PM
> *Subject: *[Dsg-rich] RICH - reflectivity test station calibration 
> stability        results
>
> Hello Marco Mirazita,
>
>  1. Attached in "/2017-07-18_calibration_stability_tests.xlsx/" are
>     the results from today's calibration stability of the reflectivity
>     test station.
>  2. In the Excel sheet, there is a table of all the raw data for the
>     calibration runs.
>  3. At the end of the data, there are statistics for the data.
>  4. For thestability test, we turned on the lamp source at 8:00AM to
>     allow it to heat up.
>  5. We aligned the test station's optics for a calibration run and
>     took data on every hour starting at 10:00AM until 4:00PM (total of
>     seven calibration runs).
>  6. After the initial alignment, the dark box was not opened and the
>     position of the photodiodes was not changed.
>  7. The results support that thecalibration measurements do not vary
>     over the course of a few hours if the test set-up is not modified
>     in any way.
>  8. The calibrations for each wavelength has a calculated error of
>     less than 1%, with the exception of the 300nm wavelenth
>     (highlighted in yellow).
>  9. The 300nm-wavelength calibration results from 10:00AM are also
>     highlighted in yellow. This measurement seems to be the source of
>     the larger error for the 300nm wavelength calibration.
> 10. Also attached in "/all_calibrations.xlsx/" is data for all
>     calibrations we used for all reflectivity tests, including the
>     ones from today.
> 11. The data is arranged in the same way as the stability test results
>     with statistics at the end.
> 12. Using all calibration run data, the calculated error of the
>     calibration is much higher (~10% to ~17%). This most likely is due
>     to the realignment that takes place between calibrations and
>     between the testing of mirrors.
> 13. In conclusion, the calibration does not seem to depend on the
>     amount of time the lamp source is on.
> 14. Using the data from all calibrations, the main source of error
>     appears to be the realignment of test station optics.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Tyler
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dsg-rich mailing list
> Dsg-rich at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dsg-rich mailing list
> Dsg-rich at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/dsg-hallb_rich/attachments/20170719/5d1e5910/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: elkcpggcbhogliip.png
Type: image/png
Size: 122020 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/dsg-hallb_rich/attachments/20170719/5d1e5910/attachment-0002.png>