From affolder@neutrino.physics.ucsb.edu Mon Jun 21 16:09:09 2004 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:46:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthony Allen Affolder To: Elizaveta Shabalina Cc: kenan@fnal.gov, Timour B Ten , Ricardo Eusebi , Lenny Spiegel , Derek Barge , Sean P. Stromberg , Claudio Campagnari , Joe Incandela , Patrick Gartung Subject: Close-out of cold testing workshop Hi, Here's my notes and action items I got from today's meeting. The presentations are available at the bottom of http://hep.ucsb.edu/people/affolder/affolder.html The meeting was extremely fruitful (for me, at least) in understanding the current situation and understanding where we need to go. I want to thank everyone who gathered the information that made this possible. We all basically came to the same conclusion. Data validation is currently a labor intensive process, and would not be maintainable is production. We agreed that we needed to move to a more automated process of data validation and data base uploading, use the newly available Defect Analyzer tool. The plan has two time frames: ST qualification and production (late July/August). We will use the first time period to gain confidence and commission the analysis tools, and we will work towards the automization of the analysis of the LT data after the ST qualification. Here's a list of things to prepare our stands and to gather outside info: FNAL will check if they have spare PAACBs, and if so, will send UCSB 1-2 needed to fill the box and for a spare. UCSB will remove the extenders from the two cold box slots not currently working. If this does not fix the problem, PATRICK agreed to come to UCSB to help de-bug them. UCSB will send FNAL the components/instructions for adding the extenders to the cold box. FNAL is impliment this after the ST qualification. FNAL will repair the broken Peltier power supply and report the results to UCSB and Vienna. TONY agreed to see if there are any CCU25 available. These are supposed to not have the stability problems on the I2C line that the CCU6 have. Could fix some of the problems FNAL is having in the cold. TONY agreed to send Marco copies of the current ARCS and LT xml files, asking if these are valid for upload (i.e. all values are filled that need to be filled) Here's is the goals/action items during the ST qualification: FNAL and UCSB will both use the 3day-1daycold.lt scenario file. When taking data, the operator will check the noise to see if it is in range (1-3 ADC) and use the module ID with no modifiers. PATRICK will give direction on how to use the current LTmacro and the new Defect Analyzer tools PATRICK also agreed to add the bias current vs. time plots used for ST qualification to the LtMacro SEAN and KENAN agreed to start validiating the tools, qualifying the data, and to start uploading the data into the database. To do so, the LTmacro and the Defect Analyzer will be run on all new qualification module data. The LTmacro plots will be used to determine if the data is valid (taken correctly or not). Next, the bad channel list out of the LTmacro, Defect Analyzer, and the original ARCS data are compared. Any differences to be understood. If the data appears valid and correct, the data will be uploaded the xml file to the database and then checked if the upload is successful. PATRICK agreed to guide this effort (explain what he already is doing) SEAN and KENAN will send a report of their progress before the Tuesday CMS meeting. Here's is the long term production goals/actions: Hopefully, during the qualification runs, we will gain confidence in the Defect Analyzer and move towards having this being the primary analysis tool, with LTMacro used in problem situations. PATRICK agreed to continue to tune/confirm the LTmacro and Defect Analyzer results when we have more data with the different types of modules tested. SEAN and KENAN will continue to run the tools in order to get the information to PATRICK SEAN and KENAN agreed to work on a tool which uses the root or xml file to generate a report, which indicates that the module was tested properly and how it compares to the ARCS measurement. Hopefully, this can be incorpated into the Defect Analyzer. The measurements used in the report are to be determined in the qualification exercise. Some expected indicators are average CM subtracted noise, average CM noise, number of bad channels (compared to ARCS data when made available through the database), number of bad channels as a function of the cold cycle, bias current, LV currents, etc. To be determined when more is known. DEREK agreed to write a tool which will extract the ARCS and LT bad channel data from the database for the comparison. PATRICK agreed to modify run-scripts of LTmacro and Defect Analyzer to run over all files in a directory. DEREK agreed to help with the automatic uploading of the xml files when we have confidence in them. I believe that these actions will ultimate lead to a less labor-intensive qualification of the data, and allow us to follow offical CMS procedures which will ultimately make rod testing easier. I want again to thank the people who agreed to work on this project. I believe this can be finished by the end of summer. If I forgot to include anything, please write me soon. Tony