1 / 21

STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison

STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison. Cross_Calibration Workshop ESTEC, Noordwijk, 2-3 february 2006. P. Robert, CETP. A. Reminder on old comparisons (IC, London, February 2001). B. New comparisons. I. Spectrograms comparison. II. Average spectra comparison. III. Wave Forms comparison.

shaun
Download Presentation

STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison Cross_Calibration Workshop ESTEC, Noordwijk, 2-3 february 2006 P. Robert, CETP A. Reminder on old comparisons (IC, London, February 2001) B. New comparisons I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions

  2. A. Old comparisons (IC, London, February 2001) A.1 Spectrogram Original FGM High res. Files provided by M. Dunlop Already STFF-FGM difference on perp. DC field P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  3. A. Old comparisons (IC, London, February 2001) A.2 Average Spectra Original FGM High res. Files provided by M. Dunlop Rather good agreement Between STFF-FGM Sensitivity differs beyond 1 Hz P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  4. B. New comparisons(February 2006) All following result has done with FGM high res. Data Provided by FGM Dapclus software, using cal tables downloaded from I.C. P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  5. P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC I. Spectrograms comparison I.1 Bx,By,Bz SC1 Rest of spin effect, OK OK

  6. Position in space 18:00 24:00 21:00 22:00 Tetrahedron size about 1200 km P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  7. P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC I.2 Bz ALL S/C OK Pb !

  8. I.3 Bperp ALL S/C 1) STAFF < FGM, FGM 2) STAFF Pb on S/C # 1 Sometimes up to 20% When strong DC field STAFF P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  9. I.3 Bperp SC1 and SC2 1) STAFF < FGM, Diff=1 nT or 16% on SC1, Diff=0.5 nT or 8% on SC2 FGM 2) STAFF Pb on S/C # 1 Sometimes up to 20% When strong DC field STAFF P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  10. P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC Fs Fs II. Average spectra comparison II.1 Bx,By,Bz SC1 Fs STAFF FGM STAFF < FGM Sensitivity loss Sensitivity loss

  11. II.2 Bz SC1 II.2 Bz SC2 Fs Fs Fs Some differences, as Bperp: Staff < FGM, Best fit with SC2 FGM STAFF Parasite spikes P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  12. P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC Fs Fs II.3 Bz All S/C Parasite spikes different between STAFF and FGM Parasite spikes different on each SC Fs

  13. III. Wave Forms comparison III.1 Filtered Bx,By,Bz, Bperp SC1 STAFF bug, offset NE 0 STAFF/FGM : difference about 0.5 nT P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  14. III.2 ZOOM on Filtered Bx,By,Bz, SC1 Looks the same, but STAFF < FGM About 20% at 2 Hz P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  15. III.3 ZOOM on Filtered Bx,By,Bz, SC2 Best fit: About 5 % But not everywhere P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  16. Fs Fs IV. Background noise Level IV.1 Bx,By,Bz SC1 Starting Time 09:02:00.029 Starting Time 09:02:00.486 Fs No reliable measurement P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  17. Fs IV. Background noise Level Fs IV.2 Bz SC1 No hurried conclusion ! Must be re-computed For other events P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  18. (from B. Grison) FGM - STAFF-SC P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  19. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION - This work has be done too quickly: We have to take care with too fast conclusions - Two basic problems has been identified: a) Why perp DC. Field estimated from STAFF SC1 is less that SC2,3,4 ? b) Why perp DC field estimated from STAFF is less than FGM measurement ? . True for perp. DC field, . But also true on the entire spectra, . And also true on the filtered waveforms We have to look on the 4 transfer functions, and carrefully study the onboard calibration - A large amount of work remain to be done: a) Study other cases, in other regions of space in other epochs With or without strong DC field b) See if preliminary conclusions remains the same ; see also HBR mode c) Introduce the new despin utility software, and restart all… P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC

  20. STAFF SC - SA (B. Grison)

  21. FGM - STAFF - EFW (B. Grison)

More Related