<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I see highlighting: <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<img src="cid:part1.71E5B5F2.23215204@jlab.org" alt="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/18/2017 6:28 PM, Amrit Yegneswaran
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:752040421.4556.1500416884457.JavaMail.zimbra@jlab.org">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div>
<div>good work tyler.<br>
</div>
<div>w.r.t. line #8: (see below, i reformatted your e-mail), i
don't see any highlighting in the excel sheet. </div>
<div>don't understand where you come up with the <1% error
you quo<span id="transmark"></span>te? <br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>fix your significant figures, do let excel decide!<br
data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>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.<br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>finally, calculate the confidence level of your
measurement.<br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>amrit<br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div><span>am<br data-mce-bogus="1">
</span></div>
<div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</span></div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div><span>w.r.t. #13<br data-mce-bogus="1">
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__">
<div data-marker="__HEADERS__"><b>From: </b>"Tyler Lemon"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tlemon@jlab.org"><tlemon@jlab.org></a><br>
<b>To: </b>"dsg-rich" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dsg-rich@jlab.org"><dsg-rich@jlab.org></a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:43:39 PM<br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Dsg-rich] RICH - reflectivity test station
calibration stability results<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__">
<div data-mce-style="font-family: times new roman,new
york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000;">
<div>Hello Marco Mirazita,<br>
</div>
<br>
<ol>
<li><span data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;
color: #000000;"><span
data-mce-style="background-color: #ffffff;">Attached</span></span>
in "<em>2017-07-18_calibration_stability_tests.xlsx</em>"
are the results from today's calibration stability of
the reflectivity test station. </li>
<li>In the Excel sheet, there is a table of all the raw
data for the calibration runs. </li>
<li>At the end of the data, there are statistics for the
data.<br>
</li>
<li>For the<span data-mce-style="background-color:
#ffffff;"> stability test,</span> we turned on the
lamp source at 8:00AM to allow it to heat up. </li>
<li>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). </li>
<li>After the initial alignment, the dark box was not
opened and the position of the photodiodes was not
changed.<br>
</li>
<li>The results support that the<span
data-mce-style="background-color: #ffffff;">
calibration measurements do not vary over the course
of a few hours </span>if the test set-up is not
modified in any way.</li>
<li><span data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">The
calibrations for each wavelength has a calculated
error of less than 1%, with the exception of the 300nm
wavelenth (highlighted in yellow).</span></li>
<li>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. <br>
</li>
<li>Also attached in "<em>all_calibrations.xlsx</em>" is
data for all calibrations we used for all reflectivity
tests, including the ones from today.</li>
<li>The data is arranged in the same way as the stability
test results with statistics at the end.</li>
<li>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.
<br>
</li>
<li>In conclusion, the calibration does not seem to depend
on the amount of time the lamp source is on. </li>
<li>Using the data from all calibrations, the main source
of error appears to be the realignment of test station
optics.<br>
</li>
</ol>
<br>
<div>Best regards,<br>
</div>
<div>Tyler<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dsg-rich mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Dsg-rich@jlab.org">Dsg-rich@jlab.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich</a><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Dsg-rich mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Dsg-rich@jlab.org">Dsg-rich@jlab.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>