1. Source measurements at CERN Prague group’s method of analysis: s-curve reconstruction and searching for point of 50% efficiency (50% according to the plateau at low thresholds). Efficiency is calculated by comparison of both links of the module inside selected area of interest (clusters are properly counted only once).

2. New Source measurements at CERN Prague Method Source and MIP: First Simulation Results Pavel Reznicek, Zdenek Dolezal, Peter Kodys Prague Bettina Mikulec, Marianne Mangin-Brinet, Mauro Donega, Monica D’Onofrio, Rainer Wallny CERN/Geneva

3. Output: Efficiency -> Median points (like in a beam test) Noise occupancy Cluster sizes Multiplicity Caveat: Efficiency not absolute false trigger pulses R/O inefficiency (no anchor module used)  Some modules’ plateau at 95% only

4. RunVdet / Bias [V]Median [fC]Noise Occ. @ 1fCCluster size @ 1fCcomment K5-503-Irradiated 64500 / 4702.81 ± 0.06(3.7 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.41 ± 0.04Chips E5,M8 70500 / 4702.77 ± 0.06(3.2 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.37 ± 0.04Beta source ~3cm higher than before 73500 / 4712.73 ± 0.05(2.7 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.33 ± 0.04Vcc 3.8V 83500 / 4732.95 ± 0.11(3.0 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.44 ± 0.04Edge on 84500 / 4732.85 ± 0.08(2.6 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.27 ± 0.05Al layer No obvious differences in median charges for different configuration (edge mode, position of the track, …)  The method is quite robust New measurements: K5-503 Irradiated, 500 V, various configurations to check the geometry sensitivity

5. RunVdet / Bias [V]Median [fC]Noise Occ. @ 1fCCluster size @ 1fCcomment K5-504-Irradiated 89500 / 4812.90 ± 0.05(7.1 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.29 ± 0.04Chips S1,S12 91450 / 4322.84 ± 0.05(7.7 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.31 ± 0.04Chips S1,S12 92400 / 3832.75 ± 0.05(8.0 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.29 ± 0.04Chips S1,S12 93a350 / 3342.52 ± 0.07(8.5 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.32 ± 0.04Chips S1,S12 93b350 / 3342.59 ± 0.06(8.0 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.29 ± 0.04Chips S1,S12 94300 / 2842.30 ± 0.07(5.4 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.26 ± 0.04Chips S1,S12 95500 / 4802.85 ± 0.04(5.3 ± 0.1). 10 -3 1.24 ± 0.04Higher scintillator threshold -> 2V K5-504 Irradiated, Bias scan

6. Simulation and digitization Geant4 simulation: 1.Detectors descriptions 2.Particle gun 3.Physics processes Input (detector and particles properties)  Simulation  Digitization  output: Simulations output: text file with tracks and deposited energy Digitization output: s-curve, noise occupancy, cluster size, (hit-map)

7. First Simulation Results: MIP Original Landau distribution Integral (hits) S-curve after digitization (charge sharing, etc.)

8. First Results: MIP to Beta particles comparison MIPBeta Hits on link 0: median4.04.2 Hits on link 0: MPV3.63.8 Hits on link 1: median4.05.1 Hits on link 1: MPV3.64.0 Digits on link 0: median3.02.9 Digits on link 0: clust. size1.0201.22 Digits on link 1: median3.12.7 Digits on link 1: clust. size1.0251.6 Some observations: Link0 to Link1 ratio MIP-hits medians on both links are the same.  -hits medians: L1 20% higher Link0,  to MIP ratio MPV: 1.05 Cluster size: 1.22 : 1.02 Digits median: almost the same Link0, Digits to Hits median MIP: 0.75  0.70 (larger charge sharing)  simulation: real Sr spectrum shape

9. Plans 1.Better geometry in Geant4 2.Proper timing in SCT-digitization software 3.Detailed comparison to testbeam and source tests data: DST production Angular scans Residuals Eta-plots 4.More source measurements 5.Communication/feedback to software people