Upload
wilma
View
41
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A(nother) measurement of Cardiac parameters P. Campana (thanks to Paolo, Rossano and Mario for help and ideas on the setup) July 16th, 2010. Method described in LHCb-2007-122 (OT FEE calibration) Inject a calibrated charge through a small capacitance (delta charge) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
A(nother) measurement of Cardiac parameters
P. Campana
(thanks to Paolo, Rossano and Mario for help and ideas on the setup)
July 16th, 2010
2
pulser
4.2 pF
50 W
Cardiac+SPB True
triggers
Q=4.5-25 fC
C=25-175 pF
Atten.
Method described in LHCb-2007-122 (OT FEE calibration)
Inject a calibrated charge through a small capacitance (delta charge)Capacitance carefully (error 10%) measured with 1 GHz Lecroy Oscilloscope (P. Ciambrone)
Deduce from Efficiency vs Threshold curves all Cardiac parameters (gain slope, noise) at various capacitance values (0 pf, 50pF, 100pF, 150pF + SPB [25pF])
Measurements performed on several channels of a Negative, a Positive and (the same) a Positive Shielded CARDIAC board
delayFake
triggers
3
effici
ency
Register units
Fitting the data points we can deduce the position ofthe Vthr for which P=50% and the width of the noise (gaussian) distribution (ENC)Furthermore, we can determine the channel offset
Noi
se ra
te
Register units
... and substracting the faketriggers, study the shapeof the efficiency below the offset
4
Check with Threshold Scan (“A”) that system is not perturbed by measurement setup
Channel 16 under test
5
Previous measurement of sensitivity (to my knowledge): Riegler, sept. 2003on a prototype board
Presentconfiguration
6
7
8
• Spectra obtained with noise scan + 5 set of charge injection: 4.5, 7.5, 10.5, 15, 25 fC• ONE channel under charge injection, all the others at “reasonable” threshold [8 fC] (anyhow no effect on efficiency found if this threshold was raised/lowered)
Noise scan
9
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.00
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
f(x) = 9.48642424242424 x + 175.937309090909
P10-175pF (mV)
0 5 10 15 20 250
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
f(x) = 11.4347272727273 x + 168.515272727273P10-125pF (mV)
0 5 10 15 20 250
100
200
300
400
500
600
f(x) = 14.3146666666667 x + 164.212
P10-75pF (mV)
0 5 10 15 20 250
100
200
300
400
500
600
f(x) = 17.9672727272727 x + 156.346327272727
P10-25pF (mV)
P50% P50%
P50% P50%
InputCharge (fC)
InputCharge (fC)
InputCharge (fC)
InputCharge (fC)
Example: channel 10 of a Positive (shielded) Cardiac
10
0 50 100 150 200 2505
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
P_RieglerN_RieglerP_this_measPolynomial (P_this_meas)N_this_measPolynomial (N_this_meas)
Input capacitance (pF)
Gai
n (m
V/fC
)Resume’ no. 1 – Gain vs capacitance curve (comparison with Werner data)
11
Resume’ no. 2 – ENC vs capacitance curve (comparison with Werner data)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
P_Riegler
N_Riegler
P_this_meas
N_this_meas
P_this_meas_Noshield
Input capacitance (pF)
Noi
se (e
lect
rons
)
12
Summary data table
Capacitance (pF) Gain (mV/fC) Bias (fC) ENC (fC) Comparison with ENC
from Thr. Scan Data *
Negative Cardiac 25 16,8 3,2 0,63
75 12,6 3,5 0,80 M2R1W (75 pF) 0,60
125 9,7 3,1 1,17 M1R4W (100 pF) 0,89
175 7,9 3,2 1,48 M2R4W (192 pF) 1,59
Pos. Cardiac (shielded) 25 18,6 2,4 0,64
75 14,4 2,4 0,91 M2R3C (89 pF) 0,81
125 11,7 2,7 1,36 M3R2C (122 pF) 1,09
175 9,7 2,5 1,90 M5R3C (167 pF) 1,41
Pos. Cardiac (unshielded) 25 17,9 2,4 0,60
125 11,5 2,6 1,86
* From Burkhard’s table (I ignore if these are the latest data)
13
Positive cardiac (unshielded)
Positive cardiac (shielded)
14
Cardiac dead timeInjection on the same channel of 2 delta charges separated by a variable Dt
Delta = 35 ns
Delta = 35 ns
Cardiac input
Cardiac output
Cardiac is “blind” below 35ns. This time value is not affected by the amount of charge injected(over a very wide range) and by the duration of Cardiac shaping
15
This result seems in contradiction with data obtained with Am241 and – probably – by GIF data,where dead time is correlated to signal amplitude
16
Conclusions
Measurements on Cardiac boards show reasonable agreement with Wernerold measurements, although I noticed:
• boards show higher gain at low capacitance (in particular for positive one)
• ENC trend is confirmed, but noise in unshielded positive boards at high capacitance is much higher(note: all INFN chambers with pad readout are equipped with shielded FEE. M2R1-C, M2R2-C,M3R1-C, M3R2-C chamber capacitances are in the range of 110-140 pF and equipped with unshielded FEE. Is this effect noticed in the data from threshold scan?)
• ENC from threshold scan appears smaller than the one evaluated with this method (done in “perfect conditions”)
Measurements were consistent and stable among several channels of the same board. A more extensive campaign of measurements (on several boards) would have been desirable...but out of the reach of my patience (all data taken “by hand”...)