|
CMS Pixel Detector
Miscellaneous
|
|
Phase 1
Phase 2
|
|
Layer 1 Replacement
Layers 2-4
|
| Layer 1 Replacement Elog |
Not logged in |
 |
|
|
 Fri Mar 27 18:29:53 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1629, M1630, M1631, M1632
|
 Mon Mar 30 14:52:59 2020, Danek Kotlinski, Full test, FT of M1629, M1630, M1631, M1632 
| |
Mon Mar 30 15:40:52 2020, Urs, Full test, FT of M1629, M1630, M1631, M1632
|
|
|
Message ID: 157
Entry time: Mon Mar 30 15:40:52 2020
In reply to: 154
|
| Author: |
Urs |
| Category: |
Full test |
| Subject: |
FT of M1629, M1630, M1631, M1632 |
|
|
M1630 is interesting because (I am using my terminology in the following) for the test at T=+10C ROC1 fails the PH optimization test and by consequence the gain/pedestal test is also failed.
The PH optimization test is failed because the minimum pixel on which the test is based is a 'dead' pixel (according to the PixelAlive test), but unfortunately has hits in the initial PH map. As a result the phscale and phoffset for this ROC are not optimal and this is seen in the gain/pedestal fits.
Please find the plots attached from the T=+10 tests. |
|
|
|
|
|