 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. |
|
Thu Mar 19 17:17:27 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Reception test, M1609-M16012
|
Reception test done and caps are glued to modules M1609-M1612.
M1611 graded B due to double column failure on ROC13. Others graded A. |
|
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. |
|
Fri Mar 20 14:46:31 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Reception test, M1615 failed
|
M1615 is programmable but "no working phases found"
Visual inspection of wire bonds - OK.
To module doctor! |
|
Fri Mar 20 14:53:52 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Reception test, M1616 failed
|
ROC10 of M1616 is not programmable, no readout from ROC10 and ROC11.
Visual inspection of wire bonds - OK
To module doctor! |
|
Fri Mar 20 17:05:58 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Reception test, M1617 failed
|
ROC8 of M1617 is programmable but no readout from it.
Silvan noticed that a corner of one ROC of this module is broken,
this is exactly ROC8. |
|
Fri Mar 20 18:09:47 2020, Andrey Starodumov, HDI test, 3 HDIs tested
|
5008 failed, but most likely die to the pin head mis-alignment. Test to be repeated.
5007 and 5008: passed tests but during HV measurements (-800V) with a multymeter I heard high frequency noise and instead of -800V measure either -100V or -500V but the voltage jumped significantly. This effect is to be understood.
For the moment these HDIs will not be used in production. |
|
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. |
|
Tue Mar 24 15:16:56 2020, Andrey Starodumov, HDI test, 8 HDIs tested on Mar 23
|
1014, 1016, 2001, 2003,
2004, 4013, 4015, 5014
All are good. |
|
Tue Mar 24 15:18:59 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Reception test, M1621 failed Reception
|
| On M1621 ROC8 is not programmable. |
|
Tue Mar 24 15:20:18 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Reception test, M1623 failed Reception
|
M1623: all ROCs are programmable but no readout from ROC0-ROC3.
Visual inspection is OK.
To module doctor. |
|
Tue Mar 24 15:41:29 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Module grading, Change in MoreWeb GradingParameters.cfg
|
On March 3d the Vcal calibration parameter has been changed:
- StandardVcal2ElectronConversionFactor from 50 to 44 (electrons/VCal)
Om March 24 the following changes done:
- trimThr from 35 to 50 (to synchronize with current target trimming threshold of Vcal=50)
- TrimBitDifference from 2. to -2. This means that difference between trimmed and untrimmed
threshold close to 0 (<2 as it was) will be ignored. |
|
Tue Mar 24 16:08:58 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Reception test, M1625 failed Reception
|
M1625: all ROCs are programmable but no readout from ROC0-ROC3.
The same symptom as for M1623.
Visual inspection is OK.
To module doctor. |
|
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. |
|
Tue Mar 24 18:11:52 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Re-grading, Reanalised test results
|
Test resulsts of several modules have been re-analised without grading on trimbit failure.
M1614: C->B
M1613: C->A
M1609: C->B
M1618: B->A
M1612: B->B
M1610: B->B
M1608: C->B
M1606: C->C (too many badly trimmed pixels)
M1605: C->B
Most of all B gradings and one C are due to badly trimmed pixels. The threshold after trimming usually has 3(!) separated peaks.
We should understand this feature. |
|
Wed Mar 25 14:11:35 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Reception test, RT of M1613 and M1614 on Mar 20
|
Reception test for these modules have been done on Mar20.
Grading A for both modules. |
|
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 |
|
Wed Mar 25 14:44:37 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Reception test, RT of M1627 and M1628
|
| Both modules graded A. |
 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*.
|
|
Wed Mar 25 18:30:23 2020, Andrey Starodumov, HDI test, 4+2 HDI tested
|
2 suspicious HDIs retested and found OK: 5006/5007
5013, 5016, 3017, 3019 are OK. |