<html><body><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div>Hello Amrit,<br></div><br><div>In the spreadsheet "<em>2017-07-18_calibration_stability_test.xlsx</em>", if you scroll all the way to the right there is a second table showing the mean current, standard deviation, calibration constant (A/B) calculated using the mean currents, and the calculated standard error. The standard errors for all wavelengths but 300nm are less than 0.01 or 1%. Below is a screen shot in case the highlighting of the 300nm result does not show again.<br></div><br><div>Best regards,<br></div><div>Tyler<br></div><br><div><img src="cid:61d8c944856a9c878c83b721651f2627b3d002c2@zimbra" alt=""></div><br><hr id="zwchr"><div><b>From: </b>"Mindy Leffel" <leffel@jlab.org><br><b>To: </b>"dsg-rich" <dsg-rich@jlab.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, July 19, 2017 7:00:08 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Dsg-rich] RICH - reflectivity test station calibration stability results<br></div><br><div><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 cite="mid:752040421.4556.1500416884457.JavaMail.zimbra@jlab.org"><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></div><br><div>fix your significant figures, do let excel decide!<br></div><br><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></div><br><div>finally, calculate the confidence level of your measurement.<br></div><br><div>amrit<br></div><br><div><span>am<br> </span></div><div><span><br> </span></div><br><div><span>w.r.t. #13<br> </span></div><br><hr id="zwchr"><div><b>From: </b>"Tyler Lemon" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tlemon@jlab.org" target="_blank"><tlemon@jlab.org></a><br> <b>To: </b>"dsg-rich" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dsg-rich@jlab.org" target="_blank"><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><br><div><div><div>Hello Marco Mirazita,<br></div><br><ol><li><span><span>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> 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> 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>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" target="_blank">Dsg-rich@jlab.org</a><br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich" target="_blank">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich</a><br></div></div><br><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset><br><pre>_______________________________________________
Dsg-rich mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Dsg-rich@jlab.org" target="_blank">Dsg-rich@jlab.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich" target="_blank">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich</a>
</pre></blockquote><br> <br>_______________________________________________<br>Dsg-rich mailing list<br>Dsg-rich@jlab.org<br>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-rich</div></div></div></div><br></div></div></body></html>