This is version 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 . It is not the current version, and thus it cannot be edited.

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

1 Technical#

1.1 Report from Technical Splinter Meeting (previous day)#

• 09:00 (Khalid Al-Janabi)

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.

• Post-SLA manoeuvre, the slit images from each channel overlap to 0.25 arcsec. An explosive event observed would help to prove the alignment.

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.

• Grating focus. The grating was driven back and forth to find the best focus position, and the images moved a lot, and consequently the dispersion relation constant changed a lot(!). But then we moved it back. HPW took histograms of the line width. We thought it might improve. At the new position, though, it's unchanged. At the extreme position, there was no usable data because the grating had moved the image so far away :-)

• Hot pixels (KFJ)

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.

• Warm pixels have mean + (5 sigma) to mean + (50 sigma) pedestal values. The rate of increase has had multiple level-offs. After the levelling off in 2008, there was an increase again in July, then levelled off in December. Seems to be a temperature dependence throughout Earth's orbit about the Sun (January is hottest). By 2010, 16% of pixels may be affected; 2012, 26% might be affected. Call on PRY to present happier news about this, though...

• Peter Young

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.

1.2 Analysis Software#

1.2.1 Status of the reduction package#

• 10:00 EIS_PREP (Alessandro Gardini)

1.2.2 Useful additional software#

(With descriptions or demonstrations)

• 10:15 Gaussian fitting routines for EIS (Peter Young)
• 10:35 A quick display method (David Williams)

Coffee#

10:40 to 11:00

1.3 Choosing data#

• 11:00 Discussion on Data access

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 :-) )

• 11:30 Tetsuya Watanabe
• 11:50 Louise Harra
• 12:10 George Doschek

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#

• 13:30 Cambridge active region studies (Helen Mason)
• 13:45 The thermal structure of active regions (Harry Warren)
• 14:00 Multi-component active region flows (Paul Bryans)
• 14:15 Flows & motions in moss in the core of a flaring active region (David Brooks)

2.2.2 Flares#

• 14:30 Evaporated Plasma (Ryan Milligan)

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#

• 15:30 Line identifications with EIS and CHIANTI (Peter Young)
• 15:50 Diagnostics with the slot (Ignacio Ugarte)

2.4 Observing Techniques & Strategies#

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

• 16:10 Some techniques for observing (David Williams)
• 16:20 Raster stitching (David Brooks)
  • Problems
  • Some examples of studies that have proven useful in overcoming these problems
  • Prospects & challenges for the future:
• How do we address observing challenging targets like flares?
  • 16:25 Flares (Ryan Milligan)
  • 16:45 Very active regions (Harry Warren / John Mariska)
• 17:05 Observation Planning - Core Team proposals and HOPS (Len Culhane)

4 EIS Website & Wiki#

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

• Changes made since last year
• How to increase participation
• Good practice
  • Keeping the contents up-to-date
• New types of content

5 Action Items and Wrap-up#

17:45

6 終わり#

18:00 END

Confirmed Attendees#

• Khalid al-Janabi (MSSL)
• Danielle Bewsher (RAL)
• David Brooks (NRL)
• Charlie Brown (NRL)
• Paul Bryans (NRL)
• Len Culhane (MSSL)
• Ken Dere (GMU)
• George Doschek (US PI; NRL)
• Alessandro Gardini (UiO)
• Hirohisa Hara (NAOJ)
• Louise Harra (PI; MSSL)
• Shinsuke Imada (NAOJ)
• Yuan-Kuen Ko (NRL)
• John Mariska (NRL)
• Helen Mason (DAMTP)
• Keiichi Matsuzaki (ISAS)
• Ryan Milligan (GSFC)
• Karin Muglach (NRL)
• Steve Myers (NRL)
• John Rainnie (RAL)
• Toshifumi Shimizu (ISAS)
• Ignacio Ugarte Urra (NRL)
• Harry Warren (NRL)
• Tetsuya Watanabe (Japan PI; NAOJ)
• David Williams (MSSL)
• Peter Young (NRL)

---

Back to the EIS Team Meeting top page.