Two new detectors EPIX10KA2M and EPIX10KAQUAD are composed from EPIX10KA modules.
Kenney, Christopher J. 2018-11-12, 2:26 PM Guide tube is 7mm outer diameter We added polyimide tape that was 150 microns thick before application to the tube. But a decent estimate would be the mechanical edge-to-edge orthogonal separation between sensor edges 7.3 mm. We need to add about 1 mm for the guard rings on each sensor So the orthogonal gap between active pixels on opposing quads across the beam guide tube should be 8.3 mm ==== Kenney, Christopher J. 2018-11-12, 4:41 PM Blaj, Gabriel;Dubrovin, Mikhail;Kwiatkowski, Maciej Very rough estimate of the gaps There are 3 types of gaps All are active pixel to active pixel sensor to sensor ~ 1.6 mm CB to CB ~ 6.4 mm sensor to CB ~ 3.9 mm ==== CB = Carrier Board edges Full camera image below ==== so 384 columns parallel to the balcony (the widest dead gaps) and 352 orthogonal to the balcony (vertical direction) |
epix10ka2m-insensitive-gaps.pdf
The internal gap between four ASICs in sensor,
pixel size 100 x 225 microns in area in both directions.
Front and back side of the new detector epix10ka2m.1 from mfxc00118 2020-07-dd
2020-10-04 MEC epix10kaquad 0 at optical metrology
2020-10-06 MEC epix10kaquad 0 front and back
2021-04-10 UED epix10kaquad
Weaver, Matt 2018-11-19, 7:37 PMO'Grady, Paul Christopher;Dubrovin, Mikhail Hi Mikhail, We took radioactive source test runs today to verify the geometry. We found that we were rotated by 90 degrees, which matches the labeling on the back of the detector as well as the metrology picture from Chris Kenney. The runs are /reg/d/psdm/det/detdaq17/e968-r0131 - source unmasked (up to ~ event 10000), then masked vertically after ~ event 15000 /reg/d/psdm/det/detdaq17/e968-r0132 - source masked horizontally at bottom after ~ event 15000. So, the picture is... // (Epix10ka2m) // | // Quad 0 | Quad 1 Quad 2 is rotated 90d clockwise // -------+-------- Quad 3 is rotated 180d clockwise // Quad 3 | Quad 2 Quad 0 is rotated 270d clockwise // | // // (Quad 1) // | // Elem 0 | Elem 1 // -------+-------- No rotations // Elem 2 | Elem 3 // | // // (Elem 0) // | // ASIC 0 | ASIC 3 // -------+-------- No rotations // ASIC 1 | ASIC 2 // | // // (Elem 0-3 pixel array) // row increasing // ^ // | // | // column increasing <-- (0,0) |
in /reg/g/psdm/detector/data_test/calib/
/reg/g/psdm/detector/data_test/calib/Epix10ka2M::CalibV1/NoDetector.0:Epix10ka2M.0/geometry/0-end.data @ (epix10ka2m - entire detector) /reg/g/psdm/detector/data_test/calib/Epix10kaQuad::CalibV1/NoDetector.0:Epix10kaQuad.0/geometry/0-end.data @ (epix10kaquad - one quad) /reg/g/psdm/detector/data_test/calib/Epix10ka::CalibV1/MecTargetChamber.0:Epix10ka.1/geometry/0-end.data @ (epix10ka - one panel) |
copy of geometry files in alignment examples /reg/g/psdm/detector/alignment/
/reg/g/psdm/detector/alignment/epix10ka2m/calib/Epix10ka2M::CalibV1/NoDetector.0:Epix10ka2M.0/geometry/0-end.data /reg/g/psdm/detector/alignment/epix10kaquad/calib/Epix10kaQuad::CalibV1/NoDetector.0:Epix10kaQuad.0/geometry/0-end.data /reg/g/psdm/detector/alignment/epix10ka/calib/Epix10ka::CalibV1/MecTargetChamber.0:Epix10ka.1/geometry/0-end.data |
Scripts for processing
CalibManager/app/ optical_metrology_check optical_metrology_epix10ka2m |
Results in
/reg/g/psdm/detector/alignment/epix10ka2m/calib-mfx-epix10ka2m-01-2018-11-15/ 2018-11-15-Metrology-epix10ka2m.xlsx 2018-11-15-Metrology-epix10ka2m.txt 2018-11-15-Metrology-epix10ka2m-corr.txt 2018-11-15-geometry-epix10ka2m.txt - geometry file accounting for optical metrology data README-2018-11-15 |
Blaj, Gabriel 2018-12-04, 2:08 PMO'Grady, Paul Christopher;Nelson, Silke;Dubrovin, Mikhail;Hart, Philip Adam Hi, You could try to use the gain files obtained with the pulser. They are not great but might work. For a better gain calibration, we should use single photon data. There is sufficient 1 photon data taken during the first testing at XCS, but it will take me a few days to calculate the gains. I would actually advocate returning the number of photons (as we discussed in a meeting a few months ago). Even without a calibration it can be easily calculated from the (average) gains: High (FH and AHL): 132 ADU/9.5 keV Medium (FM and AML): 43 ADU/9.5 keV Low (FL, AHL, AML): 1.32 ADU/9.5 keV (Just a note, while the pulser is not great for calibrating gains, it works fine for offset calibration) Thanks, Gabriel |
gain | charge injection | current default | measured (ADU / keV) | 2020-08-03 Gabriel (ADU / keV) - use as default |
---|---|---|---|---|
L | 0.46 | 0.01 | 0.139 | 0.164 |
M | 15. | 0.3(3) | 4.5 | 5.466 |
H | 46.7 | 1 | 13.9 | 16.40 |
gain default: H / M / L = 1 / 0.33333 / 0.01
gain from charge injection:
constants | Mean | RMS | RMS / MEAN |
---|---|---|---|
default | 1117.7 | 62.72 | 0.05618 |
charge injection | 1177.5 | 66.79 | 0.05672 |
Conclusion: in this test charge injection gainci constants do not improve gain factors comparing to default
Blaj, Gabriel <blaj@slac.stanford.edu> Mon 8/3/2020 6:52 PM To: Hart, Philip Adam; Dragone, Angelo; Kenney, Christopher J.; Dubrovin, Mikhail; O'Grady, Paul Christopher; Hansson, Conny; McKelvey, Mark E Hi, Here are some good starting values for the ADC to keV conversion: High gain: 132 ADU / 8.05 keV = 16.40 ADU/keV Medium gain: 132 ADU / 8.05 keV / 3 = 5.466 ADU/keV Low gain: 132 ADU / 8.05 keV / 100 = 0.164 ADU/keV Of course, a gain calibration is preferable. The same numbers work in both fixed and auto-ranging gain modes. Thanks, Gabriel ========= Blaj, Gabriel <blaj@slac.stanford.edu> Mon 8/3/2020 7:13 PM Hi, For the long integration time, I don't have a set of magic numbers, but this iterative procedure should yield optimal settings: Cool the camera as low as possible, just a few degrees over the minimum temperature to allow temperature stabilization by the PID control loop (either the chiller PID for the large cameras, or the Peltier PID in the small cameras). Of course, the small cameras can be cooled much lower than the large ones. Start with the default LCLS settings (I believe both AsicAcqWidth and R0toAcq are set to 100us by default) 0 AsicAcqWidth should be optimized for the experiment. With a very cold camera (e.g., < -15ºC) you could go to 5ms. A good starting value would be 1ms. 1 Set AsicAcqWidth to, e.g., 1 ms 2 Set R0toACQ time to 100us 3 Decrease frame rate until no frames are dropped 4 Set the X-ray source to a low flux (0.01-0.05 photons/pixel/frame?) 5 Try to get a uniform illumination 6 Repeat: - Calibrate dark - Take many frames and integrate them - Look if the resulting image is uniform or has a strange sawtooth pattern over each ASIC - If no, try reducing R0toACQ - If yes, try increasing R0toAACQ - Increase/decrease frame rate to the maximum frame rate that runs reliably (no dropped frames). 6 Until an optimum is found. For an idea how the strange sawtooth pattern looks, you could try setting: AsicAcqWidth = 1ms R0toAcq = 50us, or 20us. Thanks, Gabriel |
offset calibration: exp=xcsx35617:run=544; its timestamp 20181129124822 faked for earlier dark calibrations by reference from 20180101000000
dark runs: 413, 416, 417, 420 of xcsx35617
gain factors M, H=1, L= 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.33333, 0.4
gain map images show that lateral and central-most pixels in mode H, M, "water ring" region pixels switched to L
data:
mask_geo = det.mask_geo(par, mbits=3, width=10, wcentral=5)
plot for mask_geo + 1:
found number of bad pixels
plots for mask_status + 1 for mode=0, 1 and 2:
mask = det.mask(par, calib=False, status=True, edges=True, central=True, width=10, wcentral=5, mode=0)
Image and spectrum for
Ring-data (npy) arrays were provided for xcsx35617 run 400 by Silke, available under
Manual Detector alignment tool (geo) is used for alignment. There is no automated geometry optimization in this tool.
Alignment is started with the best geometry file obtained after optical metrology measurements for two quads, like
/reg/g/psdm/detector/alignment/epix10ka2m/calib/Epix10ka2M::CalibV1/NoDetector.0:Epix10ka2M.0/geometry/geo-epix10ka2m-v180
or
/reg/d/psdm/xcs/xcsx35617/calib/Epix10ka2M::CalibV1/XcsEndstation.0:Epix10ka2M.0/geometry/398-398.data
Quads' x0,y0 - center positions ONLY have been tuned as explained here:
1) Q0 and Q1 were moved together relative to the image center, because their geometry is constrained from optical metrology.
2) then Q2 and Q3 were moved independently in order to get consistent "to my eye" image relative to a set of drown circles.
Geometry for panels inside Q2 and Q3 is set from design geometry, and I do not feel that could do better job moving panels in quad.
There are some regular alignment issues with this detector; if I tune nicely (with precision ~ pixel size) rings in the middle of radial range,
then internal and external rings may be misaligned. This may be due to small tilt of the detector or non-accounted z position of panels
w/o optical metrology.
Resulting geometry for this data looks like on attached image.
All files are available under
The only reliable procedure to get correct detector geometry is an 3-d optical metrology of entire detector.
After that one would need to adjust precisely
1) detector center relative to image with rings
2) sample-to-detector distance
3) detector plane tilts.