Difference between revisions of "Update 18 July"
Rfarinelli (talk | contribs) (Tag: Visual edit) |
Rfarinelli (talk | contribs) (Tag: Visual edit) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
'''There is a missing part to understand the efficiency and to fill the gap between the 90% observed by the electronics and readout efficiency and the 70% of the detector.''' | '''There is a missing part to understand the efficiency and to fill the gap between the 90% observed by the electronics and readout efficiency and the 70% of the detector.''' | ||
# Continue with the hardware MC test injecting 1 or 3 strips plus the noise on each channel | # Continue with the hardware MC test injecting 1 or 3 strips plus the noise on each channel | ||
| − | # Did we test the difference between the ROC count and the trigger counter count? | + | # Did we test the difference between the ROC count and the trigger counter count? DONE: Matching ~ 98% |
# Acquire a longer cosmic run to increase the statistic | # Acquire a longer cosmic run to increase the statistic | ||
| − | # Write a code to selected the good cluster as the one with the minimum chi2 | + | # Write a code to selected the good cluster as the one with the minimum chi2 -> DONE: Efficiency improve of ~ 5% but alignment is needed to improve this technique |
# Perform a trigger-less test to collect all the data and measure the efficiency of the detector | # Perform a trigger-less test to collect all the data and measure the efficiency of the detector | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
# Run 134(T=3 E=2): 2 kHz/channel | # Run 134(T=3 E=2): 2 kHz/channel | ||
# Run 139(T=3 E=2): 170 Hz/channel | # Run 139(T=3 E=2): 170 Hz/channel | ||
| − | # Run 154 (same of 134): 190 Hz/ | + | # Run 154 (same of 134): 190 Hz/channel |
| − | # Run 150 (T=2 E=1): 285 Hz/ | + | # Run 150 (T=2 E=1): 285 Hz/channel |
| + | # Run 219 (T=2 E=1): 3 kHz/channel | ||
'''The RUN 134 (labelled as the good one) has an higher noise (10 times larger) then the larger charge value is explained in this way''' | '''The RUN 134 (labelled as the good one) has an higher noise (10 times larger) then the larger charge value is explained in this way''' | ||
Revision as of 05:04, 23 July 2019
Efficiency problem[edit | edit source]
The tracking efficiency of the layers is between 60 and 70%.
The tracking efficiency seems to do not depend on the HV.
The trigger match efficiency is above 95%.
Injecting signal on 3 strips we measure 100% of the cluster but only 91% is perfectly reconstructed.
Injecting signal on 1 strips we measure it with an efficiency of 90-97% (compatible with the trigger match test).
There is a missing part to understand the efficiency and to fill the gap between the 90% observed by the electronics and readout efficiency and the 70% of the detector.
- Continue with the hardware MC test injecting 1 or 3 strips plus the noise on each channel
- Did we test the difference between the ROC count and the trigger counter count? DONE: Matching ~ 98%
- Acquire a longer cosmic run to increase the statistic
- Write a code to selected the good cluster as the one with the minimum chi2 -> DONE: Efficiency improve of ~ 5% but alignment is needed to improve this technique
- Perform a trigger-less test to collect all the data and measure the efficiency of the detector
Charge problem[edit | edit source]
The charge collected on the detector is lower than 30-35 fC with respect to previous configurations.
Threshold level seems be unchanged (within 1fC).
The charge hits distribution around 5-12 fC is lower.
Work on data and software studies:
- Insert a software threshold on the RUN 134 to match the results of run 139
- Compare the charge distribution difference FEB by FEB (or layer by layer) between run 134 and 139
- Compare the charge distribution difference event by event between run 134 and 139
- Measure the noise level on Layer 1 from the TB data
- Compare the number of saturated hit between TIGER-ROC/APV
- Test the behavior of the dead channel settings -> It was 1. Changing it to 3 it does not change so much the results
Work on electronics and configuration studies:
- Measure the rate channel by channel to monitor it
- Perform more TS, random trigger and cosmic as a routine
Possible configuration for the data taking:
- Reduce the threshold cut up to reasonable level (5-10 kHz/channel ?) to be more sensitive to low charge hit
- Increase the HV on the detector if we have the chance to monitor Layer1 since it is very unstable
Rate measurement on the run of interest:
- Run 134(T=3 E=2): 2 kHz/channel
- Run 139(T=3 E=2): 170 Hz/channel
- Run 154 (same of 134): 190 Hz/channel
- Run 150 (T=2 E=1): 285 Hz/channel
- Run 219 (T=2 E=1): 3 kHz/channel
The RUN 134 (labelled as the good one) has an higher noise (10 times larger) then the larger charge value is explained in this way
