From: "Uemura, Sho" Subject: Re: gimp cal Date: October 23, 2013 5:21:40 PM PDT To: "Hansson Adrian, Per Ola" I took data at 0V, 180V and 220V. The cal response looks the same. Looking at that range of channels, 473 (474 according to the numbering on the sensor, I guess) is the only channel that has really low cal response. (amplitude is the first column after the channel number) gimp_102313_0V_cal.tp_pos-470 163.15 10.3926 84.3792 3803.88 gimp_102313_0V_cal.tp_pos-471 177.244 13.1137 83.3413 3271.27 gimp_102313_0V_cal.tp_pos-472 54.9893 26.9183 57.3624 3312.96 gimp_102313_0V_cal.tp_pos:473 15.871 43.6728 19.4384 533.554 gimp_102313_0V_cal.tp_pos-474 164.144 10.6391 89.7343 3350.83 gimp_102313_0V_cal.tp_pos-475 177.057 10.9983 86.5074 3079.44 gimp_102313_0V_cal.tp_pos-476 61.0423 23.2008 61.3649 2310.8 -- gimp_102313_180V_cal.tp_pos-470 510.573 10.2494 58.3125 6786.48 gimp_102313_180V_cal.tp_pos-471 522.135 12.8198 57.9876 5139.77 gimp_102313_180V_cal.tp_pos-472 126.984 14.6672 50.4161 4198.88 gimp_102313_180V_cal.tp_pos:473 18.9233 43.4288 20.905 1477.18 gimp_102313_180V_cal.tp_pos-474 494.242 10.1675 58.1403 4826.66 gimp_102313_180V_cal.tp_pos-475 501.579 10.467 58.2498 6752.9 gimp_102313_180V_cal.tp_pos-476 118.942 14.1104 51.2744 3600.29 -- gimp_102313_220V_cal.tp_pos-470 537.56 10.2362 56.3725 7311.05 gimp_102313_220V_cal.tp_pos-471 540.972 12.9417 56.3836 5000.25 gimp_102313_220V_cal.tp_pos-472 157.279 13.6916 47.8102 10705.4 gimp_102313_220V_cal.tp_pos:473 16.1806 42.9554 22.0344 877.893 bad fit for channel 474 in this data, something weird with the cal group? gimp_102313_220V_cal.tp_pos-475 537.33 10.5353 55.5327 7026.63 gimp_102313_220V_cal.tp_pos-476 125.936 13.9027 49.626 3992.57 gimp_102313_220V_cal.tp_pos-477 516.505 10.0117 56.1675 6426.98 On Wed, 23 Oct 2013, Hansson Adrian, Per Ola wrote: Hey, On Oct 23, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Sho Uemura wrote: Looks like the low-noise channels also have low cal response - consistent with pinholes. The cal response on all channels is definitely weird (amplitude is low and seems to vary a lot from event to event), I don't expect to understand it. Weird. Well, I don't trust my probing so I'm taking it to UCSC tomorrow to have the expert probe it. Perhaps there are pinholes after all then. I probed 469-475 or so. I suspect, after checking M27, that I was one off on the DC pad numbering. However, they should show up when I was probing bias bad to AC pad; something I did for all those channels?so I have no clue. Not sure if the weird response on all of them indicates anything as you say; I know even less. I presume you didn't try above and below that magical 208V bias? The unbonded APV looks fine, no surprise there. Ok. I'm done with the gimp, I was running some more tests on it so I left it connected, but you can disconnect it whenever. Cool. I'll take it tomorrow morning to have someone look at it in more detail. You should show this on the Friday meeting. Thanks, /Pelle