Improved chamber alignment

Tom Jenkins (JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU)
Tue, 16 Jan 1996 13:27:43 -0500 (EST)

I was not completely happy with the alignment constants I distributed last week.
Two chambers, 106 and 112, were a bit farther out than they should be. Here are
some improved numbers. Only chambers 106 and 112 are different. I promise I will
stop fiddling with it now - as long as we don't get a gross displacement.

-1.0504 3.097 11.935 123.69 101
-2.3343 10.387 11.302 126.57 102
-0.7854 1.130 11.103 129.69 103
-2.5781 12.004 9.476 132.57 104
-2.3191 10.213 11.126 135.69 105
-0.5272 1.051 9.380 138.69 106
-2.0852 10.275 11.907 141.69 107
0.8062 1.424 1.985 144.69 108
0.7933 1.735 2.611 167.09 109
-2.1118 10.126 12.345 169.89 110
-2.3451 10.987 11.719 172.84 111
0.5665 1.535 3.508 176.09 112
-2.3506 11.182 11.764 178.84 113
-2.5207 12.325 10.736 181.84 114
-2.3541 11.375 11.763 185.09 115
0.9568 3.284 1.613 189.65 116
-2.3490 11.505 11.939 194.29 117
-2.2340 11.207 12.405 197.29 118
0.7851 2.683 2.833 200.29 119
-2.4694 12.490 11.257 203.29 120
-2.3633 11.885 11.943 206.16 121
1.0277 3.374 1.433 209.16 122
0.7530 2.942 2.849 212.41 123
0.6109 2.449 3.518 215.41 124

(Unfortunately, this does not improve the efficiencies.)
As before, this is also available in $MINIMAX_CODE/tlj/GEOMETRY2.TXT

Tom