Slide 1 2003 MSE Calibration: Preliminary Analysis H. Yuh, S. D. Scott, R. Grantez 27 May 2003 Note: This presentation is best viewed with PowerPoint 2002.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UK hours measures from different sources – a comparison Mari Kangasniemi.
Advertisements

Proposal to Use Metallic Mirrors for MSE Continued February 10, 2003 S. D. Scott PPPL.
GOME-2 polarisation data and products L.G. Tilstra (1,2), I. Aben (1), P. Stammes (2) (1) SRON; (2) KNMI GSAG #42, EUMETSAT,
Polarization Angle Calibration by the Wiregrid rotation Osamu Tajima (KEK) Presented by Hogan Nguyen (FNAL)
Initial testing of longwave parameterizations for broken water cloud fields - accounting for transmission Ezra E. Takara and Robert G. Ellingson Department.
METO 621 Lesson 5. Natural broadening The line width (full width at half maximum) of the Lorentz profile is the damping parameter, . For an isolated.
Wireless and Mobile Communication Systems
Software Defect Modeling at JPL John N. Spagnuolo Jr. and John D. Powell 19th International Forum on COCOMO and Software Cost Modeling 10/27/2004.
CHAPTER 3 Describing Relationships
1 Seventh Lecture Error Analysis Instrumentation and Product Testing.
(FEA) Analysis P J Smith University of Sheffield 27 th November 2008.
PI laser jitter measurements Data taken on 11 th April 2013.
S. White, LBS 17 May Van Der Meer Scans: Preliminary Observations.
Simple Covariation Focus is still on ‘Understanding the Variability” With Group Difference approaches, issue has been: Can group membership (based on ‘levels.
Edge Neutral Density (ENDD) Diagnostic Overview Patrick Ross Monday Physics Meeting Monday, March19, 2007.
ICESat TM 04/21/20031 MIT Activities Two main areas of activity: –Validation of atmospheric delays being computed for ICESat –Assessment of statistics.
Tests with JT0623 & JT0947 at Indiana University Nagoya PMT database test results for JT0623 at 3220V: This tube has somewhat higher than usual gain. 5×10.
J A Snipes, 6 th ITPA MHD Topical Group Meeting, Tarragona, Spain 4 – 6 July 2005 TAE Damping Rates on Alcator C-Mod Compared with Nova-K J A Snipes *,
Sampling Distributions
Chapter 8 Introduction to Hypothesis Testing
Investigating the Accuracy and Robustness of the Icelandic Cod Assessment and Catch Control Rule A. Rosenberg, G. Kirkwood, M. Mangel, S. Hill and G. Parkes.
Plasma Dynamics Lab HIBP E ~ 0 V/m in Locked Discharges Average potential ~ 580 V  ~ V less than in standard rotating plasmas Drop in potential.
A study of systematic uncertainties of Compton e-detector at JLab, Hall C and its cross calibration against Moller polarimeter APS April Meeting 2014 Amrendra.
Validation workshop, Frascati, 13 December 2002Page 1 SCIAMACHY products quality and recommendations Based on presentations and discussions during this.
Objectives 2.1Scatterplots  Scatterplots  Explanatory and response variables  Interpreting scatterplots  Outliers Adapted from authors’ slides © 2012.
Lecture 16 Section 8.1 Objectives: Testing Statistical Hypotheses − Stating hypotheses statements − Type I and II errors − Conducting a hypothesis test.
1 Confinement Studies on TJ-II Stellarator with OH Induced Current F. Castejón, D. López-Bruna, T. Estrada, J. Romero and E. Ascasíbar Laboratorio Nacional.
Asteroids Rotation Period Study the photometric curve Rotation period Shape Is it binary? Surface composition spectroscopy.
The Practice of Statistics, 5th Edition Starnes, Tabor, Yates, Moore Bedford Freeman Worth Publishers CHAPTER 3 Describing Relationships 3.2 Least-Squares.
3243 Fri 23 Nov Summary INJ-BPM-01: took 1 shot of data, just a reference to compare with previous recent shifts – Did not see a strong dominant 100 kHz.
University of Saskatchewan PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING PHYSICS Spectral widths of F-region PolarDARN echoes, a statistical assessment A.V. Koustov, S. Toderian.
CLIC CTF3: Phase Feed Forward Comparing the effect of the phase feed forward system on beam phase stability with various theoretical predictions. CLIC.
Investigations of Artifacts in the ISCCP Datasets William B. Rossow July 2006.
OH maser sources in W49N: probing differential anisotropic scattering with Zeeman pairs desh Raman Research Institute, Bangalore + Miller Goss, Eduardo.
Quality Control  Statistical Process Control (SPC)
Measurements Measurements and errors : - Here, the goal is to have some understanding of the operation and behavior of electrical test instruments. Also,
CHAPTER 2: Basic Summary Statistics
Measurements and Their Analysis. Introduction Note that in this chapter, we are talking about multiple measurements of the same quantity Numerical analysis.
, Dan Peterson Apparent inconsistencies and other issues in the xBSM measurements of IBS Scans We have studied the pinhole and CodedAperture.
Uncertainty2 Types of Uncertainties Random Uncertainties: result from the randomness of measuring instruments. They can be dealt with by making repeated.
Essential Statistics Chapter 171 Two-Sample Problems.
Calibration of energies at the photon collider Valery Telnov Budker INP, Novosibirsk TILC09, Tsukuba April 18, 2009.
1 EMCAL Reconstruction in Pass pp 900 GeV 29/03/2010 Gustavo Conesa Balbastre.
Initial Results from the Scintillator Fast Lost Ion Probe D. Darrow NSTX Physics Meeting February 28, 2005.
Comparison of MC and data Abelardo Moralejo Padova.
Evaluation of Anomalous Fast-Ion Losses in Alcator C-Mod S. D. Scott Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory In collaboration with R. Granetz, D. Beals, C.
Chapter 4 Variability PowerPoint Lecture Slides Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences Seventh Edition by Frederick J Gravetter and Larry.
Exploring  -ray emission models using millisecond pulsars in the Second Fermi Pulsar Catalog Alice K. Harding With T. Johnson, C. Venter, E. Grove Latest.
Profiles of density fluctuations in frequency range of (20-110)kHz Core density fluctuations Parallel flow measured by CHERS Core Density Fluctuations.
Date of download: 6/22/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Schematic representation of the near-infrared (NIR) structured illumination instrument,
Application of the CRA Method Application of the CRA Method William A. Gallus, Jr. Iowa State University Beth Ebert Center for Australian Weather and Climate.
The Population of Near-Earth Asteroids and Current Survey Completion Alan W. Harris MoreData! : The Golden Age of Solar System Exploration Rome,
Elastic meson-nucleon and nucleon-nucleon scattering: models vs. all available data. E. Martynov *, J.R. Cudell, A. Lengyel * Bogolyubov Institute for.
Y.Papaphilippou Thanks to
Chapter 3 Comparison of groups.
CHAPTER 3 Describing Relationships
Degrees Radians radians = degrees degrees = radians.
2003 MSE Calibration: Preliminary Analysis
SuperB LNF meeting March 21st 2012 Marcello Piccolo
Pulse Shape Fitting Beam Test September, October CERN
Dome C, Antarctica 2012.
Telecommunications Engineering Topic 2: Modulation and FDMA
NanoBPM Status and Multibunch Mark Slater, Cambridge University
The greatest blessing in life is
UVIS Calibration Update
CHAPTER 3 Describing Relationships
Chapter 7: Sampling Distributions
Dione’s O2 Exosphere C. J. Hansen January 2013.
CHAPTER 2: Basic Summary Statistics
Chapter 3 Comparison of groups.
Presentation transcript:

Slide MSE Calibration: Preliminary Analysis H. Yuh, S. D. Scott, R. Grantez 27 May 2003 Note: This presentation is best viewed with PowerPoint 2002 or later File: 27may2003 MSE calibration.ppt

Slide 2 Shot Summary 21-May-2003: A Good Day 35 shots total –3 - Lost due to DNB gate-valve permissive (90 minutes) –1 - No-power test –1 - No-field fault –2 - Short DNB, too short to use 28 usable MSE shots –3 shots with about 25 ms DNB duration – usable –5 shots with ~5 ms faults (45 ms good DNB) – good –20 shots with full-length, 50-ms DNB

Slide 3 Calibration Data Obtained EF3 and EF4 scan at both TF=2.7 and TF=5.4 One shot at TF = 4.5 Tesla One shot each with EF1 and EF2 Several shots at same conditions to determine shot-to- shot reproducibility.

Slide 4 Two Analysis Methods Agree Well Channels 0-8: Average Difference = degrees Scatter = 0.05 degrees Channel 9 (innermost): Average Difference = 0.06 degrees Scatter = 0.14 degrees

Slide 5 Statistical Uncertainty is ~0.06 Degrees Inferred from standard deviation in mean angle (10 x 5-ms intervals) Scatter is larger for innermost channel In frame of polarimeter. Shot-shot scatter is somewhat larger – being investigated.

Slide 6 MSE Measured Angles at B T =5.4 Tesla

Slide 7 MSE Measured Angles at B T =5.4 Tesla

Slide 8 Overall Trends Look Very Consistent – No Special Behavior at EF=0

Slide 9 Shots with Matched Ratio of TF/EF

Slide 10 Calibration Against Expected Angles Compute field-line pitch-angle with mflux for all shots. Data looks quite good – consitent trends -- except for outer three channels with EF3=EF4=0. Faraday rotation effect appears to be small. Analysis in progress.

Slide 11 MSE Measured Angles at B T =2.7 Tesla

Slide 12 We expect small variation in measured angles at the outer channels due to viewing geometry Actual field-line angle (degrees) Mse measured angle (degrees)

Slide 13 The expected nonlinearity is small

Slide 14 A Puzzle: Profiles of Measured Angles for EF=0 ‘Uptick’ at edge not understood Rmajor (cm)

Slide 15 Angle in Edge Channels Measured Angle in Channel 4 Measured Angle in Other Channels Edge channel Core channels

Slide 16 Shot-Shot Scatter Sometimes Consistent with Measured Variation within a Single Shot

Slide 17 Shot-Shot Scatter Sometimes Consistent with Measured Variation within a Single Shot

Slide 18 Shot-Shot Scatter Sometimes Not Consistent with Measured Variation within a Single Shot Note: these shots have TF = 5.4 Tesla and EF3 = EF4 = 0, which seem to be problematic in other ways.

Slide 19 MFLUX Pitch-Angles during EF scan at 5.4 Tesla

Slide 20 MFLUX Mapped Pitch-Angles during EF scan at 5.4 Tesla

Slide 21 Measured MSE Angles during EF scan at 5.4 Tesla Strong rise in measured angle at outer edge Strong rise in measured angle at innermost point.

Slide 22 MFLUX Pitch-Angles during EF scans at 2.7 Tesla

Slide 23 MFLUX Mapped Pitch-Angles during EF scan at 2.7 Tesla

Slide 24 Measured MSE Angles during EF scans at 2.7 Tesla Reasonably well-behaved on innermost points. Behavior at edge similar to that at 5.4 Tesla

Slide 25 Measured MSE Polarization Fraction Polarization fraction = F I max - I min F (I max + I min ) Typical range of measured angles

Slide 26 Polarization Fraction during 5.4 Tesla EF Scan +/ Systematic +/ shot-to-shot variation. Polarization fraction is much smaller on innermost channel.

Slide 27 Polarization Fraction during 2.7 Tesla EF Scan Values at outer edge reduced from ( ) in 5.4 Tesla scan to ( ) in 2.7 Tesla scan. Innermost channel not different from others. +/- 0.05

Slide 28 Polarization During EF4 Scan at 5.4 Tesla Polarization fraction generally increases with increasing EF4. Suggests possible tuning problems but effect on measured angle should (??) be small.

Slide 29 Polarization During EF3 Scan at 5.4 Tesla Some trend toward increasing polarization fraction with increasing EF4

Slide 30 Polarization During EF3+4 Scan at 5.4 Tesla Scaling with EF is not so clear in this dataset.

Slide 31 Polarization During EF4 Scan at 2.7 Tesla Scaling with EF is not so clear in this dataset.

Slide 32 Polarization During EF3 Scan at 2.7 Tesla No clear scaling with EF in this dataset.

Slide 33 Phase Offset between 40 kHz PEM drive and Signal Varies about mean value by +/ radians. No apparent trend with EF or TF Offset between PEM drive and MSE Signal (radians)

Slide 34 Phase Offset between 44 kHz PEM drive and Signal Varies about mean value by +/ radians. No apparent trend with EF or TF Offset between PEM drive and MSE Signal (radians)

Slide 35 Effect of Phase Shift on Measured MSE Angle Phase Offset Amplitude Ratio  Angle (radians) (degrees) Angle = 0.5 * atan(Amplitude Ratio) Conclusion: the observed variability in phase shift might account for 0.02 – 0.08 degrees shot-to-shot variability.

Slide 36 Conclusions Tuning is definitely off for innermost channel at 5.4 Tesla. Polarization fraction measurements might suggest tuning problems generally, but hard to see how this could appreciably affect our measurements. Variability in phase shift between PEM and MSE signals is reasonably small … not enough to account for unusual behavior of edge channels during calibration.