(Message inbox:5739)
Return-Path: perazzo@lincd2.pv.infn.it
Received: from LinCD2.pv.infn.it by muon.physics.ucsb.edu (5.65v4.0/1.1.8.2/17Jan96-0809PM)
	id AA14481; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 07:54:07 -0800
Received: from localhost (perazzo@localhost)
	by lincd2.pv.infn.it (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA03117;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:51:53 +0100
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:51:53 +0100 (MET)
From: Amedeo Perazzo <perazzo@lincd2.pv.infn.it>
Reply-To: Amedeo Perazzo <perazzo@lincd2.pv.infn.it>
To: Claudio Campagnari <claudio@muon.physics.ucsb.edu>
Cc: emanuele@isolde.unipv.it, owen@electron.physics.ucsb.edu
Subject: Re: questions
In-Reply-To: <9803100501.AA13356@muon.physics.ucsb.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980310145652.3102B-100000@lincd2.pv.infn.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Claudio Campagnari wrote:

> (1) what value of C_inj should I use for the rad hard v2 chip 

	We use C_inj ~= (56+-5)fF

> (2) what is the (average) correspondance between threshold dac counts 
>     and mV (including average offset)

	Vthr[mV] ~= (700+-50)[mV] - (10.5+-1)[mV]*Vthr[DAC]

> (3) what is the (average) correspondance between cal dac counts
>     and mV (including average offset, for p and n side)

   (n side)
	Qinj[fC] ~= 0.056[pF] * ((8.5+-1)[mV]*Qinj[DAC] +- 10[mV])

   (p side)
	Qinj[fC] ~= 0.056[pF] * ((550+-10)[mV] - (8.5+-1)[mV]*Qinj[DAC])

These values have been found measuring 4 boards.  These numbers do not
include offset because we measured it only on two boards (for these two
boards we found a mean offset of the order of +50 mV with an offset
dispersion of the order of 12 mV). All of these values refer to
Configuration A with high gain selected

ciao, Amedeo