C3. Thermal Studies: Techniques - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

C3. Thermal Studies: Techniques

Description:

Happy Valentine's Day! 2/14/06. AIA/HMI Science Meeting. Science Context: DEM ... Wanted: practical ideas and questions, not necessarily solutions ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:40
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 10
Provided by: paulbo9
Learn more at: http://hmi.stanford.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: C3. Thermal Studies: Techniques


1
C3. Thermal Studies Techniques
Happy Valentines Day!
2
Science Context DEM
  • Observed pixel value p in the ith channel at
    pixel coordinate ?
  • where DEM(T, ?) describes conditions in the
    corona
  • With AIA, well have the best chance yet to
    obtain meaningful solutions for the DEM
  • 6 narrow EUV bandpasses ? broader T coverage
  • high spatial resolution ? study the thermal
    properties of elemental structures
  • high cadence ? study evolution of coronal
    structures at the shortest relevant timescale
  • simultaneous observations from Solar-B EIS XRT,
    GOES SXI, STEREO SECCHI,
  • Improving spectral codes and inversion techniques

3
Agenda
  • Modeling Assumptions and Uncertainties
  • Inversion Techniques
  • Data Products
  • DEM Science
  • AIA DEM recovery challenge status update
  • Wanted practical ideas and questions, not
    necessarily solutions
  • Well try to limit the first three topics to 20
    minutes each
  • Please try to hold your comments for the
    appropriate topic!

4
C3.1 Modeling Assumptions and Uncertainties
  • What are the pros and cons of current spectral
    codes (CHIANTI, APEC, MEKAL, etc.)?
  • Whats the best way to handle abundances and
    ionization equilibrium calculations?
  • How significant are opacity effects due to
    optical depth of emitting plasma along the lines
    of sight?
  • How do we factor in uncertainties in the
    instrument calibration?
  • How do all these uncertainties propogate into DEM
    analysis?
  • How can we design our DEM tools to take into
    account all of these questions?

5
C3.3 Data Products
  • What sort of data products should we provide, and
    at what level?
  • Nominal DEM solutions
  • How are they calculated (algorithm, assumed
    abundance, etc.)?
  • What resolution/cadence?
  • How are uncertainties calculated and provided?
  • Temperature maps
  • Derived from DEM solutions, but how, exactly?
  • How are they displayed?
  • To answer this question, we need to determine
  • computational power required for different data
    products and solution methods
  • useful/reasonable levels of modularity and
    flexibility for DEM tools provided by the
    instrument teams
  • graphical methods for communicating the
    information of DEM solution/uncertainty sets
    across images with millions of pixels
  • value of instrument-team provided DEM products
    (near real-time cadence) versus end-user tools
    (greater flexibility, processing)

6
AIA DEM Recovery Challenge
  • Basic Procedure
  • We provided instrument response functions and 24
    simulated sets of multispectral AIA observations
    participants found the DEM functions that best
    reproduced those observations, and compared them
    to the targets
  • www.lmsal.com/boerner/demtest/
  • So far, we have responses from
  • J. Kaastra, SRON
  • S. Gburek
  • M. Siarkowski
  • V. Kashyap (SAO)
  • more may be coming more are welcome!
  • full results will be posted on Friday

7
Simulated Observations
  • 6 DEM variants
  • plotted at left
  • one-parameter tuning
  • most are fairly smooth
  • 4 sets of parameterizations
  • Case 1-6 used provided CHIANTI T responses
    (Feldman abund, Mazzotta ion eq.) no systematic
    errors
  • Case 7-12 used CHIANTI T responses with
    different abundance (Meyer) ionization (Arnaud
    Rothenflug) no errors
  • Case 13-18 used CHIANTI T responses added
    pseudorandom calibration and atomic physics
    errors
  • Case 19-24 no errors, but used APEC T responses

8
Non-uniqueness
  • 4 perfect solutions from Marek Siarkowski
  • black target
  • red Withbroe-Sylwester solution
  • blue/green/orange genetic algorithms

9
Preliminary Conclusions
  • DEM reconstruction is hard
  • Solutions are extremely sensitive to error
  • Solutions are extremely non-unique
  • This sort of test is potentially valuable
  • A lot of people have simulated observations, then
    recovered their own observations
  • This is not as powerful a test as it could be
  • We will continue this experiment, and are
    interested in suggestions for how to do it better
  • Focus on algorithms vs. spectral codes vs.
    systematic errors
  • Develop an understanding of the differences in
    the spectral codes
  • You can help!
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com