1. December, 2002CMS Ecal1 MGPA status Design progress since October: main efforts on process spread simulations -> look for robustness to manufacturing tolerances -> seek to improve by minor adjustments to design 4 gain channel version (equivalent gains to FPPA) -> ~ complete -> process spread can be tolerated but requires adjustments to diff O/P stage termination components to compensate for channel-to-channel pulse shape differences appearing as process moves -> arises because of different differential stage gains for different gain channels (see talk last time) -> may lead to production difficulties (e.g. termination components might need to be selected on test) possible improvements? -> make use of FPPA spec review (“Memo on FPPA specifications”, C.Seez (August, 2002)) -> conclusions: 1. not possible to relax 60 pC full range signal 2. three gain ranges adequate for barrel 0 – 140instead of 0 – 50 note: highest gain required 140 – 30050 – 200 reduced by factor ~3 300 – 1250 GeV 200 - 400 400 – 1500 3. three gain ranges also acceptable for endcap

2. December, 2002CMS Ecal2 Possible improvements from going to 3 gains using FPPA spec review conclusions can re-instate equal diff O/P gains, since highest gain can be reduced Overall gain RGRG diff O/P gain 32~208 8 2 4~402 1~801 Overall gain RGRG diff O/P gain Gain range (barrel) [GeV] ~10~20~30 - 125 ~5~40~3125 - 250 ~1~200~3250 - 1250 4 – chan version 3 – chan version implications R = 200  -> slightly increased noise for lowest gain range; 28,000 -> 34,000 electrons noise performance for other 2 ranges remains < 10,000 channel to channel pulse shape variation dependence on process spread now gone one less channel also helps with: power consumption layout: package minimum pin count reduced, can use more power pins

3. December, 2002CMS Ecal3 process parameter variation pulse shape example (3 gain channel version)  = -1.5  = 0  = +1.5 small pulse shape variations  = -1.5, 0, +1.5 (difficult to see here), but ~ no channel/channel differences  moves process variables (  L, VT) together so cumulative effect worse (in real situation  L and VT vary independently) other process simulations (fast/slow nmos/pmos and vice versa) also show good channel pulse shape matching high range: 0-6 pC (0.6 pC steps) mid range: 0-12 pC (1.2 pC steps) low range: 0-60 pC (6 pC steps)

4. December, 2002CMS Ecal4 Summary 4 – channel design ~ complete tolerant to process spread if diff O/P stage termination components “select-on-test” will complicate production testing possible improvements if move from 4 -> 3 gain channels FPPA spec review => physics performance safe removes channel/channel pulse shape variation with process spread overall improvements in design robustness (pin count, power) => reduced risk => well worth having from production perspective RAL (Marcus French) now looking at layout Areas still needing attention More process spread effects studies including supply voltage and temperature effects Transmission line effects between APD and MGPA some work begun here for endcap (50 – 75 cm coax) -> short duration ringing at charge amp O/P, but not much effect on overall pulse shape needs more work, particularly for barrel Power supply rejection – not looked at yet