TeamSciMeetingMar09
Back to current versionRestore this version

EIS Team Science Meeting Agenda#

18th March

This page refers to one day of a closed meeting of the EIS consortium

Table of Contents


1 Technical#

1.1 Report from Technical Splinter Meeting (previous day)#

Khalid reported on the instrument status, w.r.t. PZT non-linearity.

Also discussed the statistics of observations carried out to date.

Remote operations initial testing and model also reported on.

Another instrumental issue is the optimisation of the focus within the instrument. Harry Warren was called on to talk about the slit and grating focus. Google was apparently able to show that the grating focus happened in Aug 2008.

KFJ: Just to clarify there was an offset between the two channels, and now they appear simultaneously on the two detectors. HPW: True. We haven't quite seen dynamic events GAD: What about images on the same detector. Wasn't there a slight offset between Fe VIII and Fe XII. HPW: in my analysis, the offset is pretty well taken care of with PRY's formula. Extremely well correlated once you account for that.

Linear trend in the increase of the number of hot pixels on the detector with time. These are in the CCD detectors, approximately 1% of pixels. Sounds like a huge fraction of the CCD. What's the best way to treat warm pixels for scientific analysis. My thought from the start of the mission was to ignore them, and neglect them in the analysis. But HPW and PRY talked and found that interpolating actually gave good results. Wrote a document to be posted on this Wiki after the meeting presenting some of the results. Used the standard EIS_PREP processing. Then artificially inserted 30% bad pixels. So how badly were the fits degraded by ignoring these fake "bad pixels". HEM: Interpolatin after fitting? PRY: This is done by EIS_PREP. And is done in the solar_Y direction KPD: How do you know they're better fits? PRY: I have the original data, and identify the places where there never were bad pixels. Then I process these data by inserting fake bad pixels, interpolate, and then compare the line fit parameters. KPD: I think you're inventing data... PRY: That was my worry, too, but it seems to work! HEM: What about clusters of missing pixels? PRY: There are different methods of tackling these.

You could reproduce the original data 97%, but the bad interpolations tend to happen in the high-intensity areas. My recommendation is to use interpolated data rather than just ignoring the missing pixels. I was amazed how well you could do even with 30% warm pixels, but it seems we can continue longer than expected by a couple, even if we don't remove them.

It may be related to EIS's oversampling w.r.t. its resolution, so there is correlation of data which allows some justification of the interpolation: there's a contribution from neighbouring pixels anyway.

We use flat-field LEDs inside the instrument, and we also measure the solar radiation variation over time. We don't seem to be seeing substantial degradation in our sensitivity.

Contamination is also measured with Quartz Crystal Mircobalance sensors, which show no appreciable increase in contamination so far.

PRY: how about the event flags? Are they implemented? KFJ: Implemented in GSW, but not tested yet. They need testing on the Sun. BP trigger could be tested soon. PRY: Is there a problem with remote planning? We'll be more cautious about doing that? KFJ: If we sit together remotely, it may be easier.

JTM: are there problems with Data Volume DRW: It may be easier in the current system.

JLC: How about use of the XRT flare flag? Do we have plans to use it? HH: it is posible for us to use it HPW: He II may be better than XRT

HEM: What does the flag give us? Is it coordinates? HH: Yes, coordinates.

Discussion followed about how to test this flag.

1.2 Analysis Software#

1.2.1 Status of the reduction package#

AG went through the ordering of calibration steps.
  1. Dark current subtraction and options for this
  2. Marking hot pixels affected by CRs
  3. Hot pixel flagging
  4. Warm pixel flagging
  5. Dusty pixel flagging
  6. Absolute calibration (specific intensity units; photons)

1.2.2 Useful additional software#

(With descriptions or demonstrations)

Coffee#

10:40 to 11:00

1.3 Choosing data#

There are huge volumes of EIS data, but it would be good to have a discussion on how to go about accessing the kind of data you're looking for.


2 Science#

2.1 EIS Science Achievements#

Each national PI will give their perspective on the scientific achievements of EIS in its first 2.5 years. These are personal perspectives on where we stand on two things:
  1. phenomena and scientific issues that were known before launch
  2. the discoveries Hinode has made with EIS
( they won't necessarily agree :-) )

Lunch#

12:30 to 13:30

2.2 EIS Science Results#

Speakers are encouraged to put special emphasis on unsolved components in the context of what they talk about, and how they can be addressed using all three instruments on Hinode.

2.2.1 Active Regions#

2.2.2 Flares#

2.3 Where to next for EIS science?#

14:45 to 15:15 Not only having listened to the contributions given this afternoon, but also having considered our progress in achieving EIS's main science goals — both pre- and post-launch — it would be good to have a discussion before and after coffee on what burning questions we think are obviously being left unanswered.

I'd like to budget 30 minutes for this.

Afternoon Tea#

15:15

2.4 Analysis Techniques#

2.4 Observing Techniques & Strategies#

What we’ve learned to date on observing with the S-band antenna

4 EIS Website & Wiki#

17:15 These are our public face for information. It would be good to talk about:

5 Action Items and Wrap-up#

17:45

6 終わり#

18:00 END


Confirmed Attendees#


Back to the EIS Team Meeting top page.



put your CopyrightNotice in here !