Tagger Magnetic Field Mapping Analysis

From GlueXWiki
Revision as of 21:07, 25 April 2014 by Jonesrt (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "<h3>Tagger field mapping analysis</h3> <h4>D. Sober  28-February-2014</h4> <h4>Analysis of field mapping results</h4> <a href="Field_mapping.pdf">Presentation to...")

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Tagger field mapping analysis

D. Sober  28-February-2014

Analysis of field mapping results

   <a href="Field_mapping.pdf">Presentation to GlueX Collaboration
     Meeting, 21-Feb-14</a>

Progress summary (all regions completed 12-Feb-2014)

  • <a href="dotplot_rays_full.pdf"> Dot plot of all points measured  (Configurations 1 through 6) </a>

Entry beam pipe region (Configuration 6) (added 06-Feb-2014)

   I have compared the measured points with the nominal beam line,
   assuming that the pole center (origin of mapping coordinates) is at
   the position X = -29.810 cm, Z =629.402 cm in room coordinates and
   using an angle of 6.5 degrees. The measured points are all within 5
   mm of the beam line, differing by about 2 mm at the pole root, and
   the slope of the line relative to the beam line is about 7 mr (0.4
   degrees).
  • <a href="Entry_pts_vs_beamline.pdf">Measured points compared to beam line</a> 
   The fields in this region at the three excitations (0.75, 1.5 and
   1.7 T, all scaled to 1.5 T) agree very well with each other and also
   with Tosca, if the Tosca calculation is shifted by -4 mm (upstream).
  • <a href="Entry_field_vs_y_log.pdf">Log plot vs Ymap</a>
  • <a href="Entry_field_vs_y_lin.pdf">Linear plot vs Ymap</a>

Configuration 3 (mapped Feb 3-4, 2014) (added 07-Feb-2014)

   This configuration is nearly the mirror image (through Y=0) of
   Config. 1, and the field looks very similar to Config. 1, except
   that the variations between the probes (uncalibrated) are even
   larger, easily visible in the plots versus X. Most of this effect
   goes away when I apply the nominal calibration factors.

   Here are some sample plots. All 3 excitations are very
   similar. 
  • 1.7 T - uncalibrated
  • 1.7 T - calibrated
    • <a href="conf3/c317c1ycent.pdf">Plot of B vs y - central region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c317c1yfringe.pdf">Plot of B vs y - fringe region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c317c1x1.pdf">Plot of B vs x (-16.35 < Y < 56.15 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c317c1x2.pdf">Plot of B vs x (58.6 < Y < 131.15 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • 1.5 T - uncalibrated
    • <a href="conf3/c315ycent.pdf">Plot of B vs y - central region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c315yfringe.pdf">Plot of B vs y - fringe region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c315x1.pdf">Plot of B vs x (-16.35 < Y < 56.15 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c315x2.pdf">Plot of B vs x (58.65 < Y < 131.15 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • 1.5 T - calibrated
    • <a href="conf3/c315c1ycent.pdf">Plot of B vs y - central region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c315c1yfringe.pdf">Plot of B vs y - fringe region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c315c1x1.pdf">Plot of B vs x (-16.35 < Y < 56.15 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c315c1x2.pdf">Plot of B vs x (58.65 < Y < 131.15 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c315c1x3.pdf">Plot of B vs x (133.65 < Y < 206.15 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c315c1x4.pdf">Plot of B vs x (208.65 < Y < 256.15 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c315c1x5.pdf">Plot of B vs x (258.65 < Y < 308.65 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • 0.75 T - uncalibrated
  • 0.75 T - calibrated
    • <a href="conf3/c3075c1ycent.pdf">Plot of B vs y - central region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c3075c1yfringe.pdf">Plot of B vs y - fringe region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c3075c1x1.pdf">Plot of B vs x (-16.35 < Y < 56.15 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="conf3/c3075c1x2.pdf">Plot of B vs x (58.6 < Y < 131.15 cm)(pdf file) </a>

Comparison with Tosca, and alignment tests (added 24-Jan-2014)

  • General agreement with Tosca calculations 
    •      The field shape vs x near the long exit edge is in good
     agreement with the Tosca calculations, from full field down to
     about 300 gauss
    • <a href="Compare_15Tosca+map_fringe.pdf">Log plot of 1.5T field (measured and Tosca) vs x for y=0,100,200 cm</a>
         
    
     I do not have actual power supply currents to compare with Tosca,
     but the ratios of field to power supply "PPM" values (using the
     prob calibration data at the center of the pole) are closely
     proportional to the Tosca B/NI ratios at 0.75, 1.5 and 1.7 T,
     which tells us that the saturation effects at high field are
     predicted correctly by Tosca. For B < 0.75 T, there is
     negligible saturation, and the ratio should be constant. The
     ratios at 0.05 and 0.1 T do not lie on the expected line, implying
     that there is a small (~2700 unit) offset in the "PPM" value.
    • <a href="Compare_B_I_ratios.pdf">Field/current ratio compared with Tosca</a>
      •        (Note that on this scale, the probes are indistiguishable.)
  • Alignment of Configuration 2 
    •      Matching the decrease of the field from maximum to ~1/2 max. with
     the Tosca calculation, the required offset in x is 
    
     22.44 cm at y=0, 
    
     22.48 cm at y=100cm, 
    
     22.49 cm at y=200cm
    
     as compared with the nominal offset of 22.40 cm. These offsets are
     the same for all 3 fields.
    • <a href="Compare_15Tosca+map_xoffsets.pdf">1.5T field (at y=0) vs x:   measured and Tosca with offsets 22.40 and 22.44 cm</a>
  • Alignment of Configuration 1 
    •      The x alignment is hard to test, since the field falls by only a
     fraction of a percent at the minimum and maximum x values of
     Configuration 1, but this small drop is not in good agreement with
     Configuration 2 (at high x) or Tosca (at high or low x).










         
    
     A shift of the Configuration 1 x-coordinate by 0.7 cm
     gives much better agreement at both ends (see figure.)  This
     effect is consistent at y=0, 100 and 200 cm, and at all 3 field
     values. 
    
     This shift is not important, because the field is essentially
     independent of x within Configuration 1 except for these
     end points.  We can ignore the highest 3 x-values
     from Configuration 1, since we have the Configuration 2
     measurements for those points. (There are no electron trajectories
     in the region of the lowest x values.)
    • <a href="Compare_15Tosca+map_conf1_shift_y0.pdf">1.5T field (at y=0) vs x:   measured and Tosca with and without 0.7 cm shift of Config. 1</a> 
      •        (probe calibrations not applied)

         
    
     The Y alignment of Configuration 1 is easy to compare with Tosca,
     as there is a significant falloff at the last two values, 306.4
     and 308.9 cm. (The 308.9 cm setting is missing from the 1.5T map.)
     Agreement with Tosca requires shifting the Y value of the measured
     points by about +0.85 cm.    Configuration 2 has no
     points near a Y field boundary.
    • <a href="Compare_17_ydep_shifted.pdf">1.7T field (Config. 1) vs y:   measured (with +0.85 cm shift) and Tosca </a> 
      •        (probe calibrations not applied)

Configuration 2 (mapped Jan. 14-15, 2014)

   This configuration consists of two files at each excitation: a
   rectangular region and an appended triangular region.

   I have combined the two files onto a single grid, and plot the
   results below. 

   

   At the highest X and Y values, the field drops to 0 because the
   measurements are made over a triangular region (see the "dotplots"
   to visualize this.)

   

   In the fringe field region, there is an interesting periodicity of
   about 70 cm, which may be due to the magnetic effects of some
   hardware like the coil clamps (or the mapping apparatus?)
  • Configuration 2 at 1.7 T
    • <a href="conf2/1.7T_conf2_001.txt">Corrected raw data file 1.7T_conf2_001.txt (1110 records)</a>
    • <a href="conf2/1.7T_conf2_002.txt">Corrected raw data file 1.7T_conf2_002.txt (39 records)</a>
    • <a href="conf2/17T2multhit.txt">ASCII dot plot of measured points</a>
    • <a href="conf2/17T2vsy1.pdf"> Plot of B vs y,  11.5<x<30.5 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/17T2vsy2.pdf"> Plot of B vs y,  31.5<x<51.5 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/17T2vsx1.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  -13.7<y<58.9 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/17T2vsx2.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  61.4<y<133.9 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/17T2vsx3.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  136.4<y<208.9 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/17T2vsx4.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  211.4<y<276.4 cm</a>
    •
  • Configuration 2 at 1.5 T
    • <a href="conf2/1.5T_conf2_001.txt">Corrected raw data file 1.5T_conf2_001.txt (1110 records)</a>
    • <a href="conf2/1.5T_conf2_002.txt">Corrected raw data file 1.5T_conf2_002.txt (39 records)</a>
    • <a href="conf2/15T2multhit.txt">ASCII dot plot of measured points</a>
    • <a href="conf2/15T2vsy1.pdf"> Plot of B vs y,  11.5<x<30.5 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/15T2vsy2.pdf"> Plot of B vs y,  31.5<x<51.5 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/15T2vsx1.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  -13.7<y<58.9 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/15T2vsx2.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  61.4<y<133.9 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/15T2vsx3.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  136.4<y<208.9 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/15T2vsx4.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  211.4<y<276.4 cm</a>
    •
  • Configuration 2 at 0.75 T
    • <a href="conf2/0.75T_conf2_001.txt">Corrected raw data file 0.75T_conf2_001.txt (1110 records) </a>
    • <a href="conf2/0.75T_conf2_002.txt">Corrected raw data file 0.75T_conf2_002.txt (39 records) </a>
    • <a href="conf2/075T2multhit.txt">ASCII dot plot of measured points</a>
    • <a href="conf2/075T2vsy1.pdf"> Plot of B vs y,  11.5<x<30.5 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/075T2vsy2.pdf"> Plot of B vs y,  31.5<x<51.5 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/075T2vsx1.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  -13.7<y<58.9 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/075T2vsx2.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  61.4<y<133.9 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/075T2vsx3.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  136.4<y<208.9 cm</a>
    • <a href="conf2/075T2vsx4.pdf"> Plot of B vs x,  211.4<y<276.4 cm</a>

Configuration 1 at 1.7 Tesla (mapped Jan 7-8, 2014)

    <a href="conf2/17T2vsy1.pdf"> </a>
  • <a href="conf2/17T2vsy1.pdf">Raw data </a>
      <a href="conf2/17T2vsy1.pdf"> </a>
    • <a href="Hall_probe_calib.xls">Hall probe calibration, 07-Jan-14 (xls file)</a>
    • <a href="1.7T/1.7T_conf1_001.txt">Corrected raw data text file, 13.85 cm < Y < 308.85 cm, -14.5 cm < X < 9.5 cm</a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1multhit.txt"> ASCII "dot plot" showing number of measured values at each point of the full grid </a>
      • The "2"'s appear because Probe 1 (alias P5) reads the same point measured by Probe 5 (alias P1) on the previous pass.
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsy.pdf"> Plot of B vs y (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsycent.pdf"> Plot of B vs y - central region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsyfringe.pdf"> Plot of B vs y - fringe region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx1.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (-13.65 < Y < 58.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx2.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (61.35 < Y < 133.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx3.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (136.35 < Y < 208.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx4.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (211.35 < Y < 283.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx5.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (286.35 < Y < 308.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx5fine.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (286.35 < Y < 308.85 cm) - fine scale (pdf file) </a>
      • The first and fifth probes are averaged (but there is no visible difference if we use only one.)
      • The periodic structure is due to Probe 4 (alias P2) reading high.
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_y001.tbl"> Table of B vs y for -14.5 < X < -5.5 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_y002.tbl"> Table of B vs y for -4.5 < X < 4.5 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_y003.tbl"> Table of B vs y for 5.5 < X < 13.5 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x001.tbl"> Table of B vs x for -13.65 < Y < 8.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x002.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 11.35 < Y < 33.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x003.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 36.35 < Y < 58.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x004.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 51.35 < Y < 83.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x005.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 86.35 < Y < 108.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x006.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 111.35 < Y< 133.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x007.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 136.35 < Y< 158.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x008.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 161.35 < Y< 183.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x009.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 186.35 < Y< 208.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x010.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 211.35 < Y< 233.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x011.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 236.35 < Y< 258.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x012.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 261.35 < Y< 283.85 cm </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x013.tbl"> Table of B vs x for 286.35 < Y< 306.35 cm </a> 
    •
  • Using probe calibration factors derived from average ratios to probe 1 (P5) in the uniform region
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsy_c0.pdf"> Plot of B vs y (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsy_c0cent.pdf"> Plot of B vs y - central region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsy_c0fringe.pdf"> Plot of B vs y - fringe region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx1_c0.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (-13.65 < Y < 58.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx2_c0.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (61.35 < Y < 133.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx3_c0.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (136.35 < Y < 208.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx4_c0.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (211.35 < Y < 283.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx5_c0.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (286.35 < Y < 308.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx5_c0fine.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (286.35 < Y < 308.85 cm) - fine scale (pdf file) </a>
  • Using probe calibration factors relative to NMR measured on 1/6/14
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsy_c1.pdf"> Plot of B vs y (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsy_c1cent.pdf"> Plot of B vs y - central region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsy_c1fringe.pdf"> Plot of B vs y - fringe region (pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx1_c1.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (-13.65 < Y < 58.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx2_c1.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (61.35 < Y < 133.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx3_c1.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (136.35 < Y < 208.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx4_c1.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (211.35 < Y < 283.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx5_c1.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (286.35 < Y < 308.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
    • <a href="1.7T/17T1vsx5_c1fine.pdf"> Plot of B vs x (286.35 < Y < 308.85 cm) - fine scale (pdf file) </a>

Configuration 1 at 1.5 Tesla (mapped Jan 8, 2014)

  • <a href="1.5T/1.5T_conf1_001.txt">Corrected raw data text file, 13.85 cm < Y < 306.35 cm, -14.5 cm < X < 9.5 cm</a>
  • <a href="1.5T/15T1multhit.txt">ASCII "dot plot" showing number of measured values at each point of the full grid </a>
    • The "2"'s appear because Probe 1 reads the same point measured by Probe 5 on the previous pass.
  • <a href="1.5T/15T1vsy.pdf">Plot of B vs y (pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/15T1vsycent.pdf">Plot of B vs y - central region (pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/15T1vsyfringe.pdf">Plot of B vs y - fringe region (pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/15T1vsx1.pdf">Plot of B vs x (-13.65 < Y < 58.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/15T1vsx2.pdf">Plot of B vs x (61.35 < Y < 133.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/15T1vsx3.pdf">Plot of B vs x (136.35 < Y < 208.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/15T1vsx4.pdf">Plot of B vs x (211.35 < Y < 283.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/15T1vsx5.pdf">Plot of B vs x (286.35 < Y < 306.35 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/15T1vsx5fine.pdf">Plot of B vs x (286.35 < Y < 306.35 cm) - fine scale (pdf file) </a>
    • The first and fifth probes are averaged (but there is no visible difference if we use only one.)
    • The periodic structure is due to Probe 4 (alias P2) reading high.
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_y001.tbl">Table of B vs y for -14.5 < X < -5.5 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_y002.tbl">Table of B vs y for -4.5 < X < 4.5 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_y003.tbl">Table of B vs y for 5.5 < X < 13.5 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x001.tbl">Table of B vs x for -13.65 < Y < 8.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x002.tbl">Table of B vs x for 11.35 < Y < 33.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x003.tbl">Table of B vs x for 36.35 < Y < 58.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x004.tbl">Table of B vs x for 61.35 < Y < 83.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x005.tbl">Table of B vs x for 86.35 < Y < 108.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x006.tbl">Table of B vs x for 111.35 < Y< 133.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x007.tbl">Table of B vs x for 136.35 < Y< 158.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x008.tbl">Table of B vs x for 161.35 < Y< 183.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x009.tbl">Table of B vs x for 186.35 < Y< 208.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x010.tbl">Table of B vs x for 211.35 < Y< 233.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x011.tbl">Table of B vs x for 236.35 < Y< 258.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x012.tbl">Table of B vs x for 261.35 < Y< 283.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.5T/map_vs_x013.tbl">Table of B vs x for 286.35 < Y< 306.85 cm </a>

Configuration 1 at 0.75 Tesla (mapped Jan 9, 2014)

  • <a href="0.75T/0.75T_conf1_001.txt">Corrected raw data text file, 13.85 cm < Y < 306.35 cm, -14.5 cm < X < 9.5 cm</a>
  • <a href="0.75T/075T1multhit.txt">ASCII "dot plot" showing number of measured values at each point of the full grid </a>
    • The "2"'s appear because Probe 1 reads the same point measured by Probe 5 on the previous pass.
  • <a href="0.75T/075T1vsy.pdf">Plot of B vs y (pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/075T1vsycent.pdf">Plot of B vs y - central region (pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/075T1vsyfringe.pdf">Plot of B vs y - fringe region (pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/075T1vsx1.pdf">Plot of B vs x (-13.65 < Y < 58.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/075T1vsx2.pdf">Plot of B vs x (61.35 < Y < 133.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/075T1vsx3.pdf">Plot of B vs x (136.35 < Y < 208.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/075T1vsx4.pdf">Plot of B vs x (211.35 < Y < 283.85 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/075T1vsx5.pdf">Plot of B vs x (286.35 < Y < 306.35 cm)(pdf file) </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/075T1vsx5fine.pdf">Plot of B vs x (286.35 < Y < 306.35 cm) - fine scale (pdf file) </a>
    • The first and fifth probes are averaged (but there is no visible difference if we use only one.)
    • The periodic structure is due to Probe 4 (alias P2) reading high.
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_y001.tbl">Table of B vs y for -14.5 < X < -5.5 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_y002.tbl">Table of B vs y for -4.5 < X < 4.5 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_y003.tbl">Table of B vs y for 5.5 < X < 13.5 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x001.tbl">Table of B vs x for -13.65 < Y < 8.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x002.tbl">Table of B vs x for 11.35 < Y < 33.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x003.tbl">Table of B vs x for 36.35 < Y < 58.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x004.tbl">Table of B vs x for 61.35 < Y < 83.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x005.tbl">Table of B vs x for 86.35 < Y < 108.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x006.tbl">Table of B vs x for 111.35 < Y< 133.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="1.7T/map_vs_x007.tbl">Table of B vs x for 136.35 < Y< 158.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x008.tbl">Table of B vs x for 161.35 < Y< 183.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x009.tbl">Table of B vs x for 186.35 < Y< 208.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x010.tbl">Table of B vs x for 211.35 < Y< 233.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x011.tbl">Table of B vs x for 236.35 < Y< 258.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x012.tbl">Table of B vs x for 261.35 < Y< 283.85 cm </a>
  • <a href="0.75T/map_vs_x013.tbl">Table of B vs x for 286.35 < Y< 306.85 cm </a>

    Old information - 12 December 2013

    Here are some files which may be helpful in analyzing the mapping data.
    Updated versions of these files are available at JLab on ~sober/HallD/tagger_mapping, in case you are able to read them there.

  • <a href="map_analysis.txt">map_analysis.txt </a> (Description of program mapsort and plotting procedures)
  • <a href="dmapsort.f">dmapsort.f </a>(Fortran program)
  • <a href="Configuration1.txt">Configuration1.txt </a> (sample data file from Tim Whitlatch)
  • <a href="plotvsx.gpl">plotvsx.gpl </a> (sample gnuplot input file to plot output of dmapsort vs. x)
  • <a href="plotvsy1-3.gpl">plotvsy1-3.gpl </a>(sample gnuplot input file to plot output of dmapsort vs. y using 3 output files)
Retrieved from "https://halldweb1.jlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Tagger_Magnetic_Field_Mapping_Analysis&oldid=56652"