1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. David Paneque, MPI Muenchen
1.2- Fixed window vs Slide window in
cosmics
Slide window produces a SIZE about % 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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.

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

17. 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

18. 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.

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