Signal studies OUTLINE 1- Signal extraction 1.1- Fixed window vs Slide window in calibration 1.2- Fixed window vs Slide window in cosmics 2- Calibration of the data (comments) 3- Hillas parameters in ON-OFF data

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.1- Fixed window vs Slide window in calibration Fitted Charge inner pixels Fixed window (3-10 slide) Slide window (6 slides) 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.1- Fixed window vs Slide window in calibration Fitted Charge Outer pixels Fixed window (3-10 slide) Slide window (6 slides) 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.1- Fixed window vs Slide window in calibration RMS pedestal Inner pixels Fixed window (3-10 slide) Slide window (6 slides) 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.1- Fixed window vs Slide window in calibration RMS pedestal Outer pixels Fixed window (3-10 slide) Slide window (6 slides) 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.1- Fixed window vs Slide window in calibration Reduced / <Q> for inner pixels Fixed window (3-10 slide) Slide window (6 slides) Mean = 0.240 Sigma = 0.018 Mean = 0.235 Sigma = 0.017 <Nphe> = (<Q> / ) 2 x F2 = 23 ph. 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.1- Fixed window vs Slide window in calibration Reduced / <Q> for outer pixels Fixed window (3-10 slide) Slide window (6 slides) Mean = 0.152 Sigma = 0.016 Mean = 0.140 Sigma = 0.017 <Nphe> = (<Q> / ) 2 x F2 = 63 ph. 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.1- Fixed window vs Slide window in calibration Conversion factors for inner pixels Fixed window (3-10 slide) Slide window (6 slides) 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.1- Fixed window vs Slide window in calibration Conversion factors for inner pixels Fixed window (3-10 slide) Slide window (6 slides) 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.2- Fixed window vs Slide window in cosmics Slide window produces a SIZE about 30-40 % higher than Fixed window (3-10 slide) -->> See Munich group web page Maxim and Hendrik studied the arrival times of pulses from Cosmics in the FADC slices. Pulses DO arrive quite late Fixed window misses part of the signal This explains PARTLY discrepancy between Berlin’s signal (200 phe) and Munich signal (350 phe) 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.2- Comments on the calibration of the data Inspection of the calibration runs before calibrating data (MANUALLY) 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen CONVERSION FACTORS for all calibration runs taken In Crab Feb 15th observations 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen Inspection of individual conversion factors evolution Fitted charge vs Calibration run for pixel 200 (Crab Feb 15th) 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen Inspection of individual conversion factors evolution Fitted charge vs Calibration run for pixel 200 (Crab Feb 15th) 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

Rejection (Set conversion factor to ZERO) of those pixels with “strange” behaviour <Q> < 50 ADC counts Reduced /<Q> away by more than 4 sigmas of the distribution (inner/outer) Mean = 0.235 Sigma = 0.017 Mean = 0.140 63 ph. 23 ph.

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen Rejection (Set conversion factor to ZERO) of those pixels with “strange” behaviour 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.2- Comments on the calibration of the data Inspection of the calibration runs before calibrating data (MANUALLY) Rejection of calibration runs in order to not destroy data Usage of “closest” calibration run to calibrate a given data run (regardless of ON-OFF) in order to correct for drifts in PMT response (PMT HV ??) Rejection of those pixels with “strange” behaviour This procedure can OBVIOUSLY be improved. It has been just a first approach to the be able to analyze data “in a decent way”… 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen

1.2- Comments on the calibration of the data THIS IS JUST A TEMPORAL SOLUTION. STILL A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE TO UNDERSTAND REASONS FOR THESE DEFFICIENCIES What is the reason for “corrupted” calibration runs, conversion factors drifts, “strange pixels” ?? Problem with PMT HV ? DAQ/FADC Problem ? Why OUTER pixels have a conversion factor of only 2.7 Times larger than INNER pixels ? Why do they have such a “wide” charge distribution ? Why do they have such a large dispersion in conversion factors ? Lower and larger dispersion in “effective QE” Problem with Inter-dynode collection efficiency (different F factor…) In my opinion, a group of people should take the responsibility of checking IN DETAIL (Runs, pixels, events) calibration data, and later cosmic data, in order to understand and correct ALL the problems in the pixel chain.

David Paneque, MPI Muenchen 1.3- Comparion ON-OFF DATA 24/02/2019 David Paneque, MPI Muenchen