---

Talk - Talk transparencies

GIF rate measurements

Fig.1a - Event dump, TDC slice vs Channel #, 96 ch board #1, Chip 1, GIF K=5 (40 kHz/wire group)

Fig.1b - Event dump, TDC slice vs Channel #, 96 ch board #4, Chip 1, GIF K=5

Fig.1c - Simulated event dump, TDC slice vs Channel #, GIF K=5

Fig.2 - GIF rate vs anode wire group #, 96 ch board, GIF K=5

Fig.3 - Detected in wire group # 23 GIF rate vs attenuation factor K, HV=3.6 kV, 96 ch board

Fig.4 - Detected in wire group # 23 GIF rate vs attenuation factor K, HV=3.6 kV, 16 ch board

Fig.5 - CSC + anode front end noise rate vs anode wire group #, 96 ch boards, GIF off, HV=3.6 kV

Single layer anode efficiency vs HV

Fig.6 - Wire group #23, layer 3 anode efficiency and inefficiency vs HV, Qthr=20 fC, 96 ch board, GIF off

Fig.7a - Wire group #23, layers anode efficiency vs HV, Qthr=20 fC, 16 ch board, GIF off

Fig.7b - Wire group #23, layers anode efficiency vs HV, Qthr=30 fC, 16 ch board, GIF off

Fig.7c - Wire group #23, layers anode efficiency vs HV, Qthr=30 fC, 16 ch board, GIF K=1

Fig.7d - Wire group #23, layers anode inefficiency vs HV, Qthr=30 fC, 16 ch board, GIF K=1

Fig.8 - HV(eff=95%) parameter vs layer #

Hit patterns used in bunch crossing tagging

Fig.9 - Hit patterns table

Fig.10 - Pattern finding efficiency vs HV for 4 and more hits from 6

Bunch crossing tagging efficiency in 25 nsec gate

Fig.11 - Single layer and the 2-nd earliest hit time distributions

Fig.12 - BX tagging efficiency (in 25 nsec gate) and time resolution vs HV for the 1-st, 2-nd and 3-rd earliest hits

Fig.13 - The same as an example of the bad set of runs

Fig.14 - The same as an example of the "too good to be true" set of runs

Fig.15 - BX tagging efficiency (in 25 nsec gate) vs GIF rate at HV=3.6 kV for the 2-nd earliest hit

---

Back to CMU EMU CMS TALKS page.

---

teren@fnal.gov
Last modified: Feb 22 16:00:00 CST 2000