ECAL: fills 1755 - 1816

1755

1816

1815

1804

1812

Time, minutes.One point per run

Average relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1755) Red: physics runsBlack: the rest

1799

Trend, 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 line

Further 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 ageing HCAL: PMT ageing should dominate

Next slides: ECAL/HCAL trends for average PMT/PIN ratios change, fills 1799-1816 ECAL/HCAL behaviour during the yesterday’s fill 1816 including two runs taken

during PHYS_ADJUST

ECAL: fills 1755 - 1816

ECAL: fills 1799 - 1816

1783

Time, minutes.One point per run

Average 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

1816

HCAL: fills 1799 - 1816

1783

Time, minutes.One point per run

Average 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

Zoom

HCAL: fills 1755, 1756 + MD period

1783

Time, minutes.One point per run

Average relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1755, run 90639)

“Cupola” shape

1755 1756

Looks 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 hours

Average relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (92651)

PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651)

PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651),Inner

PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651),Middle

PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651),Outer

X: Relative run #

HCAL, fill 1816, ~9 hours

Average relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (92651)

PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651)

PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651),Inner

PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92651),Outer

X: 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),Inner

PmToPin(92675) /PmToPin(92654),Outer

X: 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 - 1816

Last 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 supplies

Signal 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, C

<Q>vs R

Net charge according to the integrators

Black: C, topRed: C, bottomGreen A, topBlue: A, bottom

Q vs R

I22/32 O48/22

1 Mar 30 May t, sec

R, cmR, cm

ECAL: consumptions from MV

C-side A-side

Looks like further decrease of net consumption

22 Mar 30 May

I, A I, A

t, sec t, sec

HCAL: consumptions from MV

C-side A-side

Unlike ECAL, consumptions slowly increase (following number of BX increase, looks natural)22 Mar 30 May

t, sect, sec

I, A I, 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…

Impressions

Spare slides: Individual plots for sections

ECAL: fills 1755 – 1816, Inner

1755

1816

1815

1804

1812

Time, minutes.One point per run

Average relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1755) Red: physics runsBlack: the rest

1799

ECAL: fills 1755 – 1816, Middle

1755

1816

1815

1804

1812

Time, minutes.One point per run

Average relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1755) Red: physics runsBlack: the rest

1799

ECAL: fills 1755 – 1816, Outer

1755

1816

1815

1804

1812

Time, minutes.One point per run

Average relative PmToPin change with respect to 1st run (fill 1755) Red: physics runsBlack: the rest

1799

Signal change per fill, fills 1748-1816, vs Lumi

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