Click here to load reader

ECAL: fills 1755 - 1816

  • View
    39

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

ECAL: fills 1755 - 1816. Average relative PmToPin change with respect to 1 st run (fill 1755). Red: physics runs Black: the rest. Trend, shown 25/05. 1812. 1815. 1755. 1799. Time, minutes. One point per run. 1804. 1816. ECAL: fills 1755 - 1816. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Text of ECAL: fills 1755 - 1816

Slide 1

ECAL: fills 1755 - 1816

1755 1816 1815 1804 1812Time, minutes.One point per runAverage relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1755)Red: physics runsBlack: the rest 1799Trend, shown 25/05 With respect to the trend shown 25/05/2011: three long fills 1812, 1815, 1816 (~10 hours each) + few short fills (1-3 hours), time period: after bold blue lineFurther decrease of average PMT/PIN with respect to the reference point (up to 3% in case of Inner section, individual trends for each section are below, in spare slides) Systematic decrease starts from the fill 1799. Would be interesting to compare ECAL and HCAL behaviour:ECAL: clear fibers rad. damage + PMT ageingHCAL: PMT ageing should dominateNext slides: ECAL/HCAL trends for average PMT/PIN ratios change, fills 1799-1816ECAL/HCAL behaviour during the yesterdays fill 1816 including two runs taken during PHYS_ADJUSTECAL: fills 1755 - 1816ECAL: fills 1799 - 1816 1783

Time, minutes.One point per runAverage relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1799 , run 92035)REFERENCE POINT IS DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO THE TREND ON THE FIRST SLIDE 1799 1816HCAL: fills 1799 - 1816 1783

Time, minutes.One point per runAverage relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1799, run 92035)REFERENCE POINT IS DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO THE TREND ON THE FIRST SLIDE?!!Cupola shapes not like in ECAL 1799 1816

ZoomHCAL: fills 1755, 1756 + MD period 1783

Time, minutes.One point per runAverage relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1755, run 90639)Cupola shape 1755 1756Looks like in the absence of the beam the behaviour is different (or at least the effect is less pronouncing) see also zoom insertion in prev slide run #91210

ECAL, fill 1816, ~9 hoursAverage relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (92651)PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651)PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651),InnerPmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651),MiddlePmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651),OuterX: Relative run #

HCAL, fill 1816, ~9 hoursAverage relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (92651)PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651)PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651),InnerPmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651),OuterX: Relative run #

HCAL, fill 1816, ~9 hours, physics data only (first 2 points are omitted wrt previous slide)Average relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (92654)PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92654),InnerPmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92654),OuterX: Relative run # HCAL trend shows gradual decrease of average PMT/PIN in time, but size of effect is much smaller than in ECAL (~0.6% instead of ~2%)Different behaviour during the fill: ECAL shows an exponential-like decrease while average HCAL response has a cupola shape [? Physics data taking only ?]Fill 1816: non-gaussian tail on HCAL distributions PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651). Distributions become better if only physics runs are considered (also valid for ECAL)Raw PMT readings (not corrected with PINs): the behaviour is similar

Impressions: fills 1799 - 1816Last three slides:Follow-up on:relative average PMT/PIN ratio change over fill vs Lumi, ECAL net charge passed through ECAL phototubes (via integrators)Ttends for net consumptions from Agilent power suppliesSignal change per fill, fills 1748-1816

Red entries: addition to plot shown 25/05 (fills 1805-1816)Similar dependencies for each section individually: see below, in spare slides

Net charge Q, Cvs R

Net charge according to the integratorsBlack: C, topRed: C, bottomGreen A, topBlue: A, bottomQ vs RI22/32

O48/221 Mar30 Mayt, secR, cmR, cm11ECAL: consumptions from MV

C-sideA-sideLooks like further decrease of net consumption22 Mar30 MayI, AI, At, sect, secHCAL: consumptions from MV

C-sideA-sideUnlike ECAL, consumptions slowly increase (following number of BX increase, looks natural)22 Mar30 Mayt, sect, secI, AI, A Relative average PMT/PIN ratio change over the fill vs Lumi: looks like no further decrease after certain value of Lumi Net charge passed through ECAL phototubes (via integrators): up to 4 C (since 01/03/2011)It seems that in case of ECAL average consumptions from Agilent PS continue decreasing. To be verified in the absence of beam. Decrease could mean that something is getting worse

ImpressionsSpare slides: Individual plots for sectionsECAL: fills 1755 1816, Inner

1755 1816 1815 1804 1812Time, minutes.One point per runAverage relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1755)Red: physics runsBlack: the rest 1799ECAL: fills 1755 1816, Middle

1755 1816 1815 1804 1812Time, minutes.One point per runAverage relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1755)Red: physics runsBlack: the rest 1799ECAL: fills 1755 1816, Outer

1755 1816 1815 1804 1812Time, minutes.One point per runAverage relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1755)Red: physics runsBlack: the rest 1799Signal change per fill, fills 1748-1816, vs Lumi

Red entries: addition to the plots shown 25/05 (fills 1805-1816)

Search related