You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »

Charge injection data

mfxc00118 r0172 epix10ka2m.1 MfxEndstation.0:Epix10ka2M.0

./calib/Epix10ka2M::CalibV1/MfxEndstation.0:Epix10ka2M.0/pedestals/172-end.data
./calib/Epix10ka2M::CalibV1/MfxEndstation.0:Epix10ka2M.0/pixel_gain/172-end.data

Decomposition of constants to image

Calibration constants of shape (7,16,352,384) were split for seven arrays (16,352,384)

  • epix10ka2m_split_calib_for_7nda

Then, each of them was plot using

  • geometry_image -g geometry-epix10ka2m.txt -a nda-16x352x384/nda-16x352x384-mfxc00118-r0172-epix10ka2m.1-pedestals-FH.txt -R0 -n3 -p5

Pedestals and gain for gain modes

FH

FM

FL

AHL-H

AHL-L

AML-M

AML-L

Check charge injection algorithm for selected pixels

Hart, Philip Adam <philiph@slac.stanford.edu>
Thu 9/24/2020 11:52 AM
To: O'Grady, Paul Christopher
Cc: Dubrovin, Mikhail
I'm working in the data frame, except I've flattened the array for some reason.  So the standard bad behavior can be seen in module 6, pixel 7777 in my ntuple:
>>> 96*4
384
>>> 7777/384
20
>>> 7777%384
97

so [6, 20, 97] and all around there.
I see somewhat ok behavior in [14, 20, 97].
[2, 20, 97] and [10, 20, 97] seem plain ok.
[6, 4, 117] looks bad.  [2, 4, 117] seems ok.
[10, 218, 53] is pathological in a check-mark way.
[2, 286, 207] is pathological in a check-mark way.

- Philip

good pixel 2, 20, 97

bad pixel 6, 20, 97

epix10ka_offset_calibration -e mfxc00118 -d MfxEndstation.0:Epix10ka2M.0 -r172 -i6 -o ./work1 -s5 -G20,97

pathological in a check-mark way 10, 218, 53

pathological in a check-mark way 2, 286, 207

Summary

  • Minor detector damage is observed in a few constant types - in charge injection gains for FL, AHL-L, AML-L
  • Charge injection gains in stead of uniform constant gains can be used to eliminate this effect.

References











  • No labels