1. Hybrid Status/Deliveries
Prior to new deliveries, 75 bonded hybrids in hand
New deliveries
127 TOB SS4
75 for UCSB build, 52 for FNAL
23 TEC R6, 12 TEC R5, 12 TEC R2 (to FNAL)
In Air
48 TOB SS4 (to FNAL)
24 TEC R6, 12 TEC R5 (stereo), 12 TEC R2 (stereo-to FNAL)
In pipeline
160 TOB SS6 (UCSB/FNAL)
More TEC of R2, R5, R6

2. Production Plans Jan 26-Feb 6 150 SS4 Modules
Feb TEC R6 Modules
March SS6 Modules
Hybrids to FNAL
~150 SS4 Hybrids (starting ~Feb 9)
~80 SS6 Hybrids (Early March)
12 TEC R2, 12 TEC R2 Stereo (Early February)

3. Hybrid Testing Update Tested 60 bonded SS4 hybrids 0 shorts, 0 opens
2 PLL failures at -20 C
Same as seen at CERN
2 APV deaths
1 not studies thoroughly
1 does not reset
2 possible reasons why
During production, wire bonds to APV hybrid FE misplaced (between bond pads) in first bonding attempt
Chip has 3 AL strips on PA delaminate during bonding. Had to be re-bonded. Second bond may have damage APV

4. US Sensor Note
All figures/latex files available at hep.ucsb.edu/cms/UStesting.html
Describes all testing results of sensor re-probing, module CMN problem, and studies
Will have accompanying short summary note (2-3 pages) of questions/answers/conclusions
Needs to answer questions collaboration has about what we are seeing

5. Assorted Concerns Is this a production problem?
Details of FNAL production/data would shed light on this
FNAL/UCSB production slightly different
Also TEC data from Karlsruhe/Aachen
Is the problem only seen in certain batches?
Statistics of full US data will answer this
Is there time-evolution of sensors? Are new batches much better?
Re-probing of all sensors in US will help greatly to answer this
Data from production week 39, 2002-now especially important
Will be able to better constrain time constant model
Is there a correlation between CMN/wafer position?
At UCSB, yes
Due to how sensor placement chosen at UCSB
FNAL picked sensors differently, so correlation should be different
That is why we need to know which sensor has problem
Are sensor current increases up to 5 mA safe?
All sensors with >5 mA increase causes problem in UCSB production
At least 5 had lower current increases
FNAL data will double statistics

6. New Combination Results
Added 98 sensors from UR reprobing ( )
Added 93 sensors from UCSB reprobing (2003)
Waiting on FNAL info
Sensor Quarter
Number Tested
>1.5 mA
>5 mA
% >1.5 mA
% >5 mA
2001-4
140 17 14
12.1%
10.0%
2002-1
202 19 15
9.4%
7.4%
2002-2
156
9.6%
9.0%
2002-3 49 3
6.1%
0.0%
2002-4 41 1
7.3%
2.4%
2003-1 86 6
7.0%
3.5%
2003-2 95 2
3.2%
2.1%
2003-3 20

7. Fit to Rate of Change R(t)=A*(1-exp(-t/B)) A=0.125 B=1.5 Years

8. Current Necessary for CMN Problem
A small increase in bias current may cause CMN problem
For CMN modules built prior to re-probing, the difference between the module current and sum of the QTC sensor measurement used as the DI of sensor
FNAL expected/measured Ibias very useful to plot