Material to discuss

• Adrian Bevan (University of London (GB))
• Tamsin Nooney (University of London (GB))
• Fergus Wilson (STFC - Science & Technology Facilities Council (GB))
• Gianluca Inguglia (Queen Mary University of London)
• Jaap Velthuis
• Marcello Borri (University of Manchester (GB))
• Roy Crawford Lemmon (STFC Daresbury Laboratory (GB))

Checking CMS performance

• Adrian Bevan (University of London (GB))

There are three pdf files corresponding to the common mode subtraction output from ReadCherwellPix. For the files s8 and s9 it appears that bar the occasional pixel, that the CMS procedure works well and we see that there is a uniform noise response, and uniform baseline pedestal value after CMS for the reference pixel array. The sample s17 on the other hand has a pathalogical correlation between row number and noise - for rows below ~30 there is an excessively noisy tail that is not apparent in the other samples studied. s8 is a High Res chip [W12S3C2] s9 is Standard Res with low Vt implant [W5S1C1] s17 is Standard Res with standard Vt implant [??? Marked as W10, 17]