staff-sc / fgm comparison i. spectrograms comparison ii. average spectra comparison iii. wave forms...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison
I. Spectrograms comparison
II. Average spectra comparison
III. Wave Forms comparison
IV. Noise Level
Conclusions
Cross_Calibration Workshop ESTEC, Noordwijk, 2-3 february 2006
P. Robert, CETP
A. Reminder on old comparisons (IC, London, February 2001)
B. New comparisons
![Page 2: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
A. Old comparisons (IC, London, February 2001)
Original FGM High res. Files provided by M. Dunlop
Already STFF-FGM difference on perp. DC field
A.1 Spectrogram
![Page 3: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
A. Old comparisons (IC, London, February 2001)
Original FGM High res. Files provided by M. Dunlop
Sensitivity differs beyond 1 Hz
A.2 Average Spectra
Rather good agreementBetween STFF-FGM
![Page 4: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
B. New comparisons (February 2006)
All following result has done with FGM high res. DataProvided by FGM Dapclus software,
using cal tables downloaded from I.C.
![Page 5: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
I.1 Bx,By,Bz SC1I. Spectrograms comparison
OKRest of spin effect, OK
![Page 6: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
Position in space
18:0024:00 21:00
22:00
Tetrahedron size about 1200 km
![Page 7: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
I.2 Bz ALL S/C
OK
Pb !
![Page 8: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
I.3 Bperp ALL S/C
FGM
STAFF
1) STAFF < FGM,
2) STAFF Pb on S/C # 1
Sometimes up to 20%When strong DC field
![Page 9: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
I.3 Bperp SC1 and SC2
FGM
STAFF
2) STAFF Pb on S/C # 1
1) STAFF < FGM, Diff=1 nT or 16% on SC1, Diff=0.5 nT or 8% on SC2
Sometimes up to 20%When strong DC field
![Page 10: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
II. Average spectra comparison II.1 Bx,By,Bz SC1
STAFF FGM
Sensitivity loss
STAFF < FGM
Sensitivity loss
Fs
FsFs
![Page 11: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
II.2 Bz SC1
STAFF
FGM
II.2 Bz SC2
Some differences, as Bperp: Staff < FGM,
Best fit with SC2
Fs
FsFs
Parasite spikes
![Page 12: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
II.3 Bz All S/C
Fs
FsFs
Parasite spikesdifferent on each SC
Parasite spikes different between STAFF and FGM
![Page 13: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
III. Wave Forms comparison
III.1 Filtered Bx,By,Bz, Bperp SC1
STAFF bug, offset NE 0
STAFF/FGM : difference about 0.5 nT
![Page 14: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
III.2 ZOOM on Filtered Bx,By,Bz, SC1
Looks the same, butSTAFF < FGM
About 20% at 2 Hz
![Page 15: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
III.3 ZOOM on Filtered Bx,By,Bz, SC2
Best fit: About 5 %But not everywhere
![Page 16: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
IV. Background noise Level IV.1 Bx,By,Bz SC1
Starting Time 09:02:00.029
Starting Time 09:02:00.486
No reliable measurement
Fs
Fs Fs
![Page 17: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
IV. Background noise Level
IV.2 Bz SC1Fs
Fs
No hurried conclusion !Must be re-computed
For other events
![Page 18: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
FGM - STAFF-SC (from B. Grison)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
![Page 19: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
P. Robert, Croos Cal WS, 2006-02-02, ESTEC
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 spacein 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…
![Page 20: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
STAFF SC - SA (B. Grison)
![Page 21: STAFF-SC / FGM Comparison I. Spectrograms comparison II. Average spectra comparison III. Wave Forms comparison IV. Noise Level Conclusions Cross_Calibration](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649cf95503460f949ca4c1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
10-1
100
101
102
103
104
10-12
10-10
10-8
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
10-1
100
101
102
103
10410
-10
10-8
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
106
10-1
100
101
102
103
10410
-10
10-8
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
106
FGM
STAFF-SC
STAFF-SA
f-2.5
SC 2-FGM/STAFF/EFW/SC+SA 2002/02/18 04:59:28-04:59:48
FGM/STAFF
nT2/Hz
EFW
(mV/m) 2/Hz
Hz
EFW
STAFF sensitivity
Fci=0.38Hz Flh=16Hz
FGM - STAFF - EFW (B. Grison)