 Mon May 11 21:37:43 2020, Dinko Ferencek, Software, Fixed the BB defects plots in the production overview page
|
[URL=https://gitlab.cern.ch/CMS-IRB/MoReWeb/-/commit/0407e04c85725cac41a1cbf08af68744c40b2bc7]0407e04c[/URL]: attempting to fix the BB defects plots in
the production overview page (seems mostly related to the 17 to 10 C change)
[URL=https://gitlab.cern.ch/CMS-IRB/MoReWeb/-/commit/f2d554c5f53c712ffaec02d55bfb6006b0fe3799]f2d554c5[/URL]: it appears that BB2 defect maps were not |
Mon May 11 14:40:16 2020, danek kotlinski, Other, M1582 
|
On Friday I have tested the module M1582 at room temperature in the blue box.
The report in MoreWeb says that this module has problems with trimming 190 pixels in ROC1.
|
|
Mon May 11 14:14:05 2020, danek kotlinski, Other, M1606
|
On Friday I have tested M1606 at room temperature in the red cold box.
Previously it was reported that trimming does not work for ROC2.
|
|
Mon May 11 13:19:51 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Cold box tests, M1539
|
After several attempts including reconnecting the cable, M1539 had no readout if it's connected to TB3. When connected to TB1, M1539 did not show any problem.
M1606 worked properly both with TB1 and TB3.
For FT test the configuration is following:
|
|
Thu May 7 01:51:03 2020, Dinko Ferencek, Software, Strange bug/feature affecting Pixel Defects info in the Production Overview page
|
It was observed that sometimes the Pixel Defects info in the Production Overview page is missing
[IMG]elog:256/1[/IMG]
|
|
Thu May 7 00:56:50 2020, Dinko Ferencek, Software, MoReWeb updates related to the BB2 test 9x
|
Andrey noticed that results of the BB2 test (here example for ROC 12 in M1675)
[IMG]elog:255/1[/IMG]
|
|
Thu May 7 00:27:41 2020, Dinko Ferencek, Module grading, Comment about TrimBitDifference and its impact on the Trim Bit Test
|
To expand on the following [URL=https://elrond.irb.hr/elog/Layer+1+Replacement/253]elog[/URL], on Mar. 24 Andrey changed the TrimBitDifference parameter
in Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg from 2 to -2
|
|
Thu Apr 30 16:47:00 2020, Matej Roguljic, Software, MoReWeb empty DAC plots
|
Some of the DAC parameters plots were empty in the total production overview page. All the empty plots had the number "35" in them (e.g. DAC distribution
m20_1 vana 35). The problem was tracked down to the trimming configuration. Moreweb was expecting us to trim to Vcal 35, while we decided to trim to Vcal
50. I "grepped" where this was hardcoded and changed 35->50.
|
 Thu Apr 30 17:24:57 2020, Dinko Ferencek, Software, MoReWeb empty DAC plots
|
[quote="Matej Roguljic"]Some of the DAC parameters plots were empty in the production overview page. All the empty plots had the number "35" in them (e.g.
DAC distribution m20_1 vana 35). The problem was tracked down to the trimming configuration. Moreweb was expecting us to trim to Vcal 35, while we decided
to trim to Vcal 50. I "grepped" where this was hardcoded and changed 35->50.
|
|
Thu Apr 30 17:33:04 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Software, MoReWeb empty DAC plots
|
[quote="Matej Roguljic"]Some of the DAC parameters plots were empty in the total production overview page. All the empty plots had the number "35" in them
(e.g. DAC distribution m20_1 vana 35). The problem was tracked down to the trimming configuration. Moreweb was expecting us to trim to Vcal 35, while we
decided to trim to Vcal 50. I "grepped" where this was hardcoded and changed 35->50.
|
|
Thu May 7 00:10:15 2020, Dinko Ferencek, Software, MoReWeb empty DAC plots
|
[quote="Andrey Starodumov"][quote="Matej Roguljic"]Some of the DAC parameters plots were empty in the total production overview page. All the empty plots
had the number "35" in them (e.g. DAC distribution m20_1 vana 35). The problem was tracked down to the trimming configuration. Moreweb was expecting us
to trim to Vcal 35, while we decided to trim to Vcal 50. I "grepped" where this was hardcoded and changed 35->50.
|
|
Wed May 6 16:24:21 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1580, M1595, M1606, M1659
|
M1580: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in ROC5/8 and trimming failures for 100+ pixels in the same ROCs at +10C, previous result of April 27 was better
M1595: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in few ROCs, previous result of April 30 was much worse with 80/90 pixels failed trimming in ROC0 and ROC15
M1606: Grade C due to 192 pixels failed trimming in ROC2 at +10C, previous result of April 6 was much better with B grade
|
|
Wed May 6 13:20:28 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1574, M1581, M1660, M1668
|
Modules tested on May 5th
M1574: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in ROC10 and trimming failures for 89 pixels in ROC0, the same as the first time April 24 (there 104 pixels failed)
M1581: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in ROC8/13, no trimming failures in ROC8/13, as it was on April 27 (120+ pixel in ROC8/13 failed) ->[COLOR=red] |
|
Tue May 5 13:58:45 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1582, M1649, M1667
|
M1582: Grade C due to trimming failure in ROC1 for 189 pixels at +10C. This is third time module restesed:
1) February 26 (trimming for VCal 40 and old PH optimization): Grade B, max 29 failed pixels and in few ROCs mean noise
2) April 27: Grade C due to trimming failure in ROC1 for 167 pixels at +10C, at -20C still max 45 failed pixels and in few ROCs mean noise
|
|
Mon May 4 15:28:14 2020, Andrey Starodumov, General, M1660
|
M1660 is taken from gel-pak and cabled for retest.
This module was graded C only at second FT at-20C, the first FT at -20C and FT at +10C give grade B. Massive trimming failure of pixels in ROC7 was not
observed.
|
|
Mon May 4 14:18:20 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1540, 1549, 1571, 1598
|
M1540: Grade A
M1549: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC2 and 48 dead pixels in ROC5
M1571: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for many ROCs
|
|
Mon May 4 14:13:39 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1552, M1553, M1595, M1597
|
FT on April 30th
M1552: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC7,8
M1553: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
|
|
Fri May 1 19:34:01 2020, danek kotlinski, Module grading, M1582
|
M1582 was classified as C because of 167 pixels failing trimming in ROC1.
I have tested this module.
The attached plots show the 1d & 2d threshold distributions.
|
|
Thu Apr 30 15:38:43 2020, danek kotlinski, Module transfer, M1635 & M1671 transferred to gel-pack
|
| Two bad modules have been placed in gel-packs: 1635 & 1671. |
|
Thu Apr 30 15:25:36 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1548, M1549, M1550, M1551
|
M1548: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC11
M1549: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC2. In total 200+ pixels failed trimming in the module [COLOR=red]-> investigate???[/COLOR]
M1550: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC5
|
|
Thu Apr 30 15:16:58 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1540, M1541, M1543, M1547
|
Modules tested om April 29
M1540: Grade B due to many (>1000) pixels failed trimming but only 70 are in "C-zone" for ROC0 at -20C [COLOR=red]-> retest!!![/COLOR]
M1541: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
|
|
Wed Apr 29 18:11:36 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1590, M1592, M1596, M1600
|
Modules tested om April 28
M1590: Grade B Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1592: Grade B Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
|
|
Wed Apr 29 14:08:42 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1536, M1537, M1538
|
M1536: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC1
M1537: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1538: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs and trimming failure for 70 pixels in ROC14 at -20C |