...

line begin-end: (761,3106)-(1022,3209)

Comparing Charge Injection Results To Water Ring Data In AML_L

Image Added

This plot produced by "python aml_new.py ~cpo/ipsana/epix_aml_93_badgoodpix_allevts.h5".  h5 file from "bsub -n 24 -q psanaq -o %J.log mpirun python max_det_epix_amllswitch.py exp=mfxp17518:run=93".

Notes:

• first 3 plots are various bad pixels (in the module 6 bad asic) vs. various good pixels (in a nearby module 6 good asic)
• fourth plot is a good pixel vs. a good pixel
• the overlaid lines are charge injection result, including the approximate range covered by charge injection
• in order to compare different pixels, the charge injection lines assumes that the same pulser DAC value injects the same charge into each pixel

Conclusions:

• the charge-injection data looks significantly different than the water ring data for bad/good pixel comparison plots.  looks reasonable for good/good pixel comparison plots
• if one believes the charge-injection gain measurements, this is evidence for a check-mark gain pattern in the bad asic:  lower gains at lower values, higher gains at higher values.
• the water-ring data suggests that charge-injection gains should not be used for high-intensity
• the check-mark isn't the whole story, since the water ring data in the bad asic does not match the charge-injection data (the charge-injection line does not pass through the middle of the water-ring points).

References

• EPIX10KA2M References
• EPIX10KA2M issue with panel 6 in mfxp17518 2M.1 refurbished 2020-09-20

...