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
goog 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
Overview
Content Tools