| ID |
Date |
Author |
Category |
Subject |
|
91
|
Thu Feb 27 09:47:51 2020 |
Urs Langenegger | Full test | Fulltest on 2020/02/26 |
On Wednesday, 2020/02/26 the following modules went through the full qualification procedure:
M1581
M1582
M1583
M1584
All received grade B (from a cursory glance due to mean noise). |
|
93
|
Fri Feb 28 17:33:16 2020 |
Urs Langenegger | Full test | Fulltests on 2020/02/28 |
M1589 B
M1590 C (gain issues?)
M1591 C (noise issues?)
M1592 B |
|
94
|
Mon Mar 2 17:39:36 2020 |
Urs Langenegger | Full test | Fulltests on 2020/03/02 |
Modules tested:
M1595 C
M1596 B
M1597 C
M1600 C
Andrey and I suspect that these grades are driven by a bad PH optimization. |
|
96
|
Wed Mar 4 11:32:42 2020 |
danek kotlinski | Full test | change the target trim threshodl to vcal=50 |
After some discussion we decided to change the target trimming threshold from vcal 40 to 50.
Many ROCs cannot be run with xrays at 40 while all I have seen until now can be run at 50.
45 might be possible for some rocs but will fail for others.
D. |
|
105
|
Thu Mar 12 17:21:59 2020 |
Matej Roguljic | Full test | Fulltests on 2020/03/12 |
Modules tested:
M1557 C (trim bits at -20)
M1558 C (gain at -20)
M1590 B (still graded C in moreweb because of the previous full qualification, this should be corrected)
M1600 B (still graded C in moreweb because of the previous full qualification, this should be corrected) |
|
107
|
Sat Mar 14 17:08:14 2020 |
Matej Roguljic | Full test | Fulltests on 2020/03/13 |
Modules tested:
M1591 C (gain at -20)
M1595 B
M1597 B
M1598 B |
|
115
|
Wed Mar 18 17:46:07 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1601-M1604 |
M1601-M1604 passed full test
M1601: grade B
M1602-M1604: Grade C. The main reason is failed pixels during trimbit test.
To be understood the reason and to be upgraded manually. |
|
117
|
Thu Mar 19 18:01:50 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1605-M1608 |
Only M1607 graded B. All others are graded C due to trimbit test.
M1606 should be looked carefully and may be retested since the threshold after trimming has strange features
(although not for all temperatures) that may mean that some trimbits really do not work.
Other modules to be re-analised without results of trimbit test or upgrade manually, since these results
are due to test algorithm. After trimming the threshold looks good for all failed ROCs. |
|
122
|
Fri Mar 20 18:32:34 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1609-M1612 |
M1609 and M1611 are graded C
M1610 and M1612 are graded B
C and most B grades are due to many trimbit failures. Interesting that this time at +10C there are more failures then at -20C. |
|
131
|
Tue Mar 24 18:09:07 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1615, M1619, M1620, M1622 |
Test results have been analysed with modified code:
M1615: B
M1619: A
M1620: B
M1622: B
One pixel of M1615 still failed mask test but it was not taken in to account in the final grading???
I put it in the shelves for Module doctor. To be decided what to do with this module. |
|
134
|
Wed Mar 25 14:17:51 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1609, M1613, M1614, M1618 on Mar 23 |
FT for these modules has been done on Mar 23
M1609: C
M1613: C
M1614: C
M1618: B
All C due to trim bit test failures |
|
137
|
Wed Mar 25 17:03:11 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1615, M1619, M1620, M1622 |
| Andrey Starodumov wrote: | Test results have been analysed with modified code:
M1615: B
M1619: A
M1620: B
M1622: B
One pixel of M1615 still failed mask test but it was not taken in to account in the final grading???
I put it in the shelves for Module doctor. To be decided what to do with this module. |
For Wolfram one channel of M1615 does not work. He noticed that the cable has corrosion (probably this cable has been attached to a module that has been irradiated in Zagreb). After Reception test this module again graded C due to a mask test failure of one pixel in one ROC.
Wolfram proposed to grade this module as C*.
|
|
140
|
Wed Mar 25 18:40:53 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1599, M1613, M1624, M1616 |
M1599: B due to leakage current at +10 (2-3umA)
M1613: B due to a few pixels with bad trimmed threshold
M1624: B due to a few ROCs with mean noise>200electrons
M1626: A |
|
146
|
Thu Mar 26 17:45:15 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1545, M1557, M1627, M1628 |
Retested M1545: C->B (to be correct on the MoreWeb summary page)
Retested 1557: C->C in one ROC >160 pixels failed to be trimmed Module placed in a tray C*
1627: B
1628: B
All B grades due to high (>200electons) mean noise. |
|
147
|
Fri Mar 27 10:54:04 2020 |
Urs Langenegger | Full test | Issues with pc11366 on March 27 |
On March 27 I had a lot of troubles getting the full qualification up
and running.
The problems were (1) strange error messages from pxar core, (2)
problems with USB connections to the DTBs, (3) loads of (intermittent)
data transmission errors from the DTBs, and (4) complaints about missing
(system) libs.
In the end I did killall firefox and (out of superstition) pkill compiz.
Then it worked again. |
|
153
|
Fri Mar 27 18:28:34 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | 4 HDIs tested |
| HDIs 5020, 5018, 1044 and 1041 are OK |
|
154
|
Fri Mar 27 18:29:53 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1629, M1630, M1631, M1632 |
M1629: B due to mean noise at -20C
M1630: C due to ROC1 with all pixels failed of PH calibration (Gain). Both FT at -20C are A!
Should be understood and retested. Put in C* tray.
M1631: B due to mean noise in all 3 FT
M1632: A |
|
156
|
Mon Mar 30 14:52:59 2020 |
Danek Kotlinski | Full test | FT of M1629, M1630, M1631, M1632 |
I have tested M1630.
I see not problem with ROC1. See the attached plot.
There is one dcol in ROC12 which shoes the "pattern" problem seen in a few other ROCs.
I think this module is fine, should be B. Could be retested. |
| Attachment 1: m1630_roc1_ph_fits.png
|
|
|
157
|
Mon Mar 30 15:40:52 2020 |
Urs | Full test | 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. |
| Attachment 1: phval-curve_M1630_p10_C1.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 2: phshot_vcal255.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 3: pixelalive_C1.pdf
|
|
|
162
|
Tue Mar 31 08:21:39 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of 1558, 1606, 1634, 1636 on Mar 30 |
M1558: B
M1606: C again due to trimmed threshold for 189 pixels of ROC2 at -20C. Second time at -20C and at +10C the number of failed pixels is 90+, hence grading is B.
We could manually upgrade this module to B.
M1634: A
M1636: A |