1 / 80

2 nd Progress Report

2 nd Progress Report . Analysis of Data from a Calibration Neutron Monitor at Doi Inthanon and a Ship-Borne Neutron Monito r. Presented By Waraporn Nuntiyakul 5238713 SCPY/D. outline. Overview of the relevant theoretical literature Methodology

tyra
Download Presentation

2 nd Progress Report

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. 2nd Progress Report Analysis of Data from a Calibration Neutron Monitor at DoiInthanon and a Ship-Borne Neutron Monitor Presented By WarapornNuntiyakul 5238713 SCPY/D

  2. outline • Overview of the relevant theoretical literature • Methodology • Results and Discussion of work-to-date • [including addressing major difficulties encountered] • Summary and Conclusion • Possible future directions • Acknowledgement • References

  3. Overview of the Relevant Theoretical Literature

  4. 9 To improve NM response function Describes the input-output relationship of a signal transducer such as a neuron turning synaptic input into a response. • Dorman et al. (2000) • Nagashima et al. (1989) Page 7 SURVEY TECHNIQUE Dorman Function: 1 FIG. 5-1 Spectral Crossover FIG. 5-2 Sample fit of a segment’s data to a Dorman function, along with the corresponding derivative. -- Credit: Bieber et al. 2003

  5. Page 8 SURVEY TECHNIQUE Cutoff Sky Map To improve 2 geomagnetic cutoff model • DGRF Magnetic Field Model : Definitive International Geomagnetic Reference Fieldplus Tsyganenko magnetosphere. • Calculate “Efficient Apparent” • (sky average) Cutoffs “A sky map is calculated by tracing trajectories of charged particles through the geomagnetic field to determine allowed and forbidden rigidities” [Lin et al., 1995]. Fig 6 Effective cutoff rigidity sky map for 43.92 OS, 76.64 OW at 2330 UT on day 75 of 1995. Vertical cutoff is 8.23 GV and apparent cutoff is 8.65 GV. Solid dots show locations where cutoffs are calculated for the ring approximation -- Credit: Clem et al., 1997)

  6. Page 9 SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND: Nagashima Response Function Transportable Monitor (not to scale) U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers, the Polar Seaor the Polar Star carry a Neutron monitor standard 3-NM64 geomagnetic Transmission Pc heliosphericModulation GCR spectrum Yield function Counting Rate STEP FUNCTION Assuming L is a limiting rigidity, Tis a step function T Differential Response fn. 1 P 0

  7. Page 10 DEVELOP OPTIMAL METHODS (Nagashima method) FOR EXTRACTING COSMIC RAY SPECTRA FROM LATITUDE SURVEYS. [Calculate integrals of the Nagashima Response Function using Simpson’s rule] Set and manage the parameters of the response function calculations. There are a total of 14 adjustable parameters. In this routine they are numbered 1-14 and dealt with systematically. The defaults are the values in the paper. Galactic Cosmic Ray Spectrum GCR Spectrum The total energy per nucleon (assuming proton) in unit of Proton mass = 0.93827231 Best parameters from the paper --- > 1 = 1.2 ×108, 2 = 0.0, 3 = 2.585

  8. Page 11 Yield Function - The total energy per nucleon (assuming proton) in unit of Best parameters from the paper --- >  = 0.0, 1 = 2.2, 2 = 1.62, 3 = 12.7, 4 = 0.50, 5 = 0.42 Modulation Function Yield Function Modulation Function - This term is due to the energy dependence of the neutron production and expresses the h-dependence of Y in high-energy region - This term expresses the decrease of the production mainly due to the decrease of the number of effective nucleons in the atmosphere with the increase of h and with the decrease of u where 1(t) as a function of other parameters and variables so it must be recomputed from time to time by the functions that use the parameters Best parameters from the paper --- > 2 = 0.097, 3 = 1.02, 4 = 1.15, 5 = 14.9, 6 = 1.12

  9. DoiInthanon Image Credit: http://www.dfi.uchile.cl/ec_web/htm/cosmic_rays_network.html

  10. Page 12 ANALYZE THE DATA FROM A SHIP-BORNE MONITOR WITH THREE COUNTER TUBES Made trips across the Pacific ocean from Seattle to Antarctica and back, over a wide range of cutoff rigidities, over 1994 to 2007. U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers Fig. 7Route of Latitude surveys

  11. Methodology

  12. methodology

  13. methodology Good Results (glitches are removed from the data set ) See the physical effects of interest ‏ Fit all the data together using SURVEY (We should get the best of the Yield function parameters) Produce the spectra of latitude surveys

  14. Results and Discussion of Work-to-Date

  15. 1994-1995 Survey – Neutron Monitor x = no problem EQ = various EQuipment problems

  16. Quality = 8.9921E+00 Quality = 7.5303E+00 Figure 1-1Data (box) and model fit (line) to the moderated bare latitude survey in 1994-1995 survey. The parameters in the figure show the best fit in my research (Left) and in Nagashimaet al., 1989 (Right). Box symbol: we show the counting rate (counts/second) plotted against the apparent cutoff calculated at the center point of the averaging interval. Most of the systematic wandering results from variations in barometric-pressure. Line symbol: we show the model achieved after several iterations of my fitting routine.

  17. We called “the goat” when the fit errors are smooth and near zero except for a rather definite time interval that they go somewhat negative. A B Goat existence Goat existence Data Gap ~DOY368-369 Removed the goat C Goat existence Figure 1-2Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 1-1 A as a function of time B as a function of modulation level Cas a function of barometric-pressure (mmHg)

  18. Goat existence Goat existence B A Figure 1-3 Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 1-1 as a function of Apparent Cutoff Rigidity (GV). A analyze by using the best parameters from Nagashima et al., 1989 B analyze by using the best parameters from my research

  19. 1995-1996 Survey – BARE x = no problem

  20. Quality = 4.9959E+00 Quality = 4.0460E+00 Figure 2-1Data (box) and model fit (line) to the moderated bare latitude survey in 1995-1996 survey. The parameters in the figure show the best fit in my research (Left) and in Nagashimaet al., 1989 (Right). Box symbol: we show the counting rate (counts/second) plotted against the apparent cutoff calculated at the center point of the averaging interval. Most of the systematic wandering results from variations in barometric-pressure. Line symbol: we show the model achieved after several iterations of my fitting routine.

  21. B A C Figure 2-2Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 2-1 A as a function of time B as a function of modulation level Cas a function of barometric-pressure (mmHg)

  22. B A Figure 2-3 Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 2-1 as a function of Apparent Cutoff Rigidity (GV). A analyze by using the best parameters from Nagashima et al., 1989 B analyze by using the best parameters from my research

  23. 1995-1996 Survey – Neutron Monitor x = no problem EQ = various EQuipment problems

  24. Quality = 2.6810E+01 Quality = 4.3571E+01 Figure 3-1Data (box) and model fit (line) to the moderated neutron monitor latitude survey in 1995-1996 survey. The parameters in the figure show the best fit in my research (Left) and in Nagashimaet al., 1989 (Right). Box symbol: we show the counting rate (counts/second) plotted against the apparent cutoff calculated at the center point of the averaging interval. Most of the systematic wandering results from variations in barometric-pressure. Line symbol: we show the model achieved after several iterations of my fitting routine.

  25. B A Data Gap ~DOY 432-445 C Figure 3-2Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 3-1 A as a function of time B as a function of modulation level Cas a function of barometric-pressure (mmHg)

  26. B A Figure 3-3 Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 3-1 as a function of Apparent Cutoff Rigidity (GV). A analyze by using the best parameters from Nagashima et al., 1989 B analyze by using the best parameters from my research

  27. 1996-1997 Survey – Neutron Monitor x = no problem EQ = various EQuipment problems

  28. Quality = 5.3770E+01 Quality = 5.1740E+01 Figure 4-1Data (box) and model fit (line) to the moderated neutron monitor latitude survey in 1996-1997 survey. The parameters in the figure show the best fit in my research (Left) and in Nagashimaet al., 1989 (Right). Box symbol: we show the counting rate (counts/second) plotted against the apparent cutoff calculated at the center point of the averaging interval. Most of the systematic wandering results from variations in barometric-pressure. Line symbol: we show the model achieved after several iterations of my fitting routine.

  29. A B Data Gap ~ DOY 400-409 Data Gap ~ DOY 359-361 Removed the bad counts Removed the bad counts C Figure 4-2Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 4-1 A as a function of time B as a function of modulation level Cas a function of barometric-pressure (mmHg) Removed the bad counts

  30. Removed the bad counts Removed the bad counts A B Figure 4-3Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 4-1 as a function of Apparent Cutoff Rigidity (GV). A analyze by using the best parameters from Nagashima et al., 1989 B analyze by using the best parameters from my research

  31. 1997-1998 Survey – Neutron Monitor x = no problem EQ = various EQuipment problems

  32. Quality = 2.7932E+01 Quality = 4.6057E+01 Figure 5-1Data (box) and model fit (line) to the moderated neutron monitor latitude survey in 1997-1998 survey. The parameters in the figure show the best fit in my research (Left) and in Nagashimaet al., 1989 (Right). Box symbol: we show the counting rate (counts/second) plotted against the apparent cutoff calculated at the center point of the averaging interval. Most of the systematic wandering results from variations in barometric-pressure. Line symbol: we show the model achieved after several iterations of my fitting routine.

  33. B A Data Gap ~DOY 305-308 C Figure 5-2Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 5-1 A as a function of time B as a function of modulation level Cas a function of barometric-pressure (mmHg)

  34. A B Figure 5-3Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 5-1 as a function of Apparent Cutoff Rigidity (GV). A analyze by using the best parameters from Nagashima et al., 1989 B analyze by using the best parameters from my research

  35. 1998-1999 Survey – Neutron Monitor x = no problem EQ = various EQuipment problems

  36. Quality = 2.8576E+01 Quality = 2.5470E+01 Figure 6-1Data (box) and model fit (line) to the moderated neutron monitor latitude survey in 1998-1999 survey. The parameters in the figure show the best fit in my research (Left) and in Nagashimaet al., 1989 (Right). Box symbol: we show the counting rate (counts/second) plotted against the apparent cutoff calculated at the center point of the averaging interval. Most of the systematic wandering results from variations in barometric-pressure. Line symbol: we show the model achieved after several iterations of my fitting routine.

  37. A B Data Gap ~DOY 314-320 Data Gap ~DOY 443-445 Removed Bad Mod Data Gap ~DOY 377-425 Data Gap ~DOY 307-312 Removed Bad Mod Removed Bad Mod Figure 6-2Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 6-1 A as a function of time B as a function of modulation level Cas a function of barometric-pressure (mmHg) C

  38. A B Figure 6-3Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 6-1 as a function of Apparent Cutoff Rigidity (GV). A analyze by using the best parameters from Nagashima et al., 1989 B analyze by using the best parameters from my research

  39. 1999-2000 Survey – Neutron Monitor x = no problem EQ = various EQuipment problems

  40. Quality = 3.9339E+01 Quality = 2.7758E+01 Figure 7.1Data (box) and model fit (line) to the moderated neutron monitor latitude survey in 1999-2000 survey. The parameters in the figure show the best fit in my research (Left) and in Nagashimaet al., 1989 (Right). Box symbol: we show the counting rate (counts/second) plotted against the apparent cutoff calculated at the center point of the averaging interval. Most of the systematic wandering results from variations in barometric-pressure. Line symbol: we show the model achieved after several iterations of my fitting routine.

  41. B A C Figure 7-2Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 7-1 A as a function of time B as a function of modulation level Cas a function of barometric-pressure (mmHg)

  42. B A Figure 7-3Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 7-1 as a function of Apparent Cutoff Rigidity (GV). A analyze by using the best parameters from Nagashima et al., 1989 B analyze by using the best parameters from my research

  43. 2000-2001 Survey – Neutron Monitor x = no problem

  44. Quality = 4.3961E+01 Quality = 6.2524E+01 Figure 8-1Data (box) and model fit (line) to the moderated neutron monitor latitude survey in 2000-2001 survey. The parameters in the figure show the best fit in my research (Left) and in Nagashimaet al., 1989 (Right). Box symbol: we show the counting rate (counts/second) plotted against the apparent cutoff calculated at the center point of the averaging interval. Most of the systematic wandering results from variations in barometric-pressure. Line symbol: we show the model achieved after several iterations of my fitting routine.

  45. Forbushdecrease(FD) is a rapid decrease in the observed GCRs intensity following a CME. It occurs due to the magnetic field of the plasmasolar wind sweeping some of the GCRs away from Earth. Removed FD B Removed FD during DOY 465-470 A Removed FD Figure 8-2Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 8-1 A as a function of time B as a function of modulation level Cas a function of barometric-pressure (mmHg) C

  46. Removed FD Removed FD B A Figure 8-3Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 8-1 as a function of Apparent Cutoff Rigidity (GV). A analyze by using the best parameters from Nagashima et al., 1989 B analyze by using the best parameters from my research

  47. 2001-2002 Survey – Neutron Monitor x = no problem EQ = various EQuipment problems

  48. Quality = 1.5202E+01 Quality = 1.0521E+01 Figure 9-1Data (box) and model fit (line) to the moderated neutron monitor latitude survey in 2001-2002 survey. The parameters in the figure show the best fit in my research (Left) and in Nagashimaet al., 1989 (Right). Box symbol: we show the counting rate (counts/second) plotted against the apparent cutoff calculated at the center point of the averaging interval. Most of the systematic wandering results from variations in barometric-pressure. Line symbol: we show the model achieved after several iterations of my fitting routine.

  49. A B C Figure 9-2Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 9-1 A as a function of time B as a function of modulation level Cas a function of barometric-pressure (mmHg)

  50. A B Figure 9-3Residuals (counts/second) from the fit shown in Figure 9-1 as a function of Apparent Cutoff Rigidity (GV). A analyze by using the best parameters from Nagashima et al., 1989 B analyze by using the best parameters from my research

More Related