[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

xrt_co: - Fwd: GMU draft agenda


  Attached is a draft agenda that I sent to the NRL people. They
are forwarding this to David Williams (EIS) for consideration.
David had sent around an agenda Aug (see attached).

  I would recommend that XRT people who would like to attend this
meeting plan on arriving in the morning of 30-Oct and departing
late 31-Oct (boo) or 1-Nov. We should have an integrated agenda
this week.

Please send me a note if you are planning on attending
so I can give Ken Dere and the NRL people an attendance list.


Current attendees that I know of:
DeLuca, Golub, Schmelz, Cirtain

========= Williams draft agenda ======

GMU EIS SciMeeting.doc

GMU EIS SciMeeting.doc

======= Suggestions to NRL/EIS ========

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ed Deluca <edeluca@cfa.harvard.edu>
> Date: October 1, 2007 12:09:52 PM EDT
> To: Harry Warren <hwarren@nrl.navy.mil>, John Mariska  
> <mariska@nrl.navy.mil>
> Subject: GMU draft agenda
> Hi,
>  Here are my thoughts on the EIS/XRT joint meeting. I think we need  
> to send
> something out about this soon (esp to the XRT people as some may  
> not come
> depending on the topics). Is this consistent with your objectives?
> XRT/EIS science
> DRAFT AGENDA - DeLuca 1-Oct-2007
> 30-OCT
> 	EIS technical meeting
> 	XRT informal group meetings
> 	XRT report to EIS on status of remote operations (15min  
> presentation 15min discussion)
> 31-OCT
> 	Plenary session (30min)
> 	Morning splinter sessions (3.5hr)
> 		AR observations
> 		Micro flares, flares
> 		Jets, XBPs, CH
> 	Lunch
> 	Plenary session (30min)
> 	Afternoon splinters session (2.5hr)
> 		AR observations
> 		Micro flares, flares
> 		Jets, XBPs, CH
> 	Plenary session  (1hr)
> ---- more details -----
> Plenary session
> 	Welcome,
> 	Splinter session overview
> 	Additional splinters?
> Morning splinters are devoted to defining the science objectives  
> for different observations
> Plenary session
> 	Splinter chairs review the discussions  (5min + 5min discussion)
> Afternoon splinters are devoted to writing HOPs and detailed  
> observation planning
> Plenary session
> 	Splinter chairs review HOPs
> 	Concluding remarks
> ============ Previous email below =======================
> (0) Trust is the most important thing in a relationship
> 	XRT needs to trust EIS to provide the detailed plasma properties  
> during an investigation
> 	EIS needs to trust XRT to provide the context in space and time  
> for those plasma 		properties
> 	Teams need to trust the COs to make the right decisions on  
> pointing and cadence / data  		rate decisions. Over constraining a  
> joint observation will not produce usable data
> (1) Default structure for a joint observation
> 	A typical ~6hr XRT/EIS program should start with each instrument  
> taking a set
> 	of context data: XRT large FOV images in multiple passbands  
> (particularly thick ones)
> 	run it several times to estimate time changes; EIS full rasters  
> with a broad range of
> 	lines (long and short exposures?) estimated time ~1hr.
> 	Then 4 hrs of high time cadence XRT images using thin and thick 
> (binned?) filters.
> 	EIS runs multiple small rasters or picket fence depending on the  
> line selection.
> 	End with ~1hr of context data as above.
> (2) Sharing resources
> 	Are there programs which EIS (or XRT) can run only if they have  
> additional
> 	data rates? What is the best complimentary program for the other  
> instrument?
> (3)Joint Science
> 	Flares
> 		The pre-flare state is most interesting. We need the super-hot lines
> 	from EIS to be included in the plan. XRT may want to run a 5- 
> filter set at
> 	high cadence and binning in several filters.
> 	Micro-flares
> 		XRT highest time cadence is needed. At most 2-filters. Maybe
> 	try running with just Be_med and let EIS provide the 1-2MK context.
> 	If the orientation is favorable flows can be measured.
> 	AR Loops
> 		Loops, loops, loops - if we don't solve this problem with Hinode,
> 	we should give up and start raising dairy goats. The loops are  
> going to have
> 	different heating mechanisms, they are all going to be time  
> dependent,
> 	and flows along the loop is probably the norm. Can we define the
> 	basic loop program that will give:	
> 		Te(t), ne(t) and v(t) over sufficiently large Te and at a  
> sufficient number
> 		of points that we can constrain the heating, filling factor and  
> ionization state.
> 	What is XRT's role here?
> 		Dynamics, connectivity and high temperature (4-10MK) constraints
> 	AR Flows
> 		There is a lot of email about this program already. Maybe
> 	enough is known so the program is on track and no further  
> discussion is needed?		
> 	AR Filament/prominence
> 		Do we really need two names for the same thing seen differently?
> 		XRT can give the structure and evolutions of AR filament channels.		
> 		EIS transition region lines are needed to model the thermal  
> structure
> 			around the filament. Can EIS see the filament/corona transition  
> region?
> 			I think I have seen it as a transient structure in TRACE above  
> the limb.
> 			Flows around the filament channel? Density structure?
> 		On the disk we can model the magnetic field for AR filaments.
> 	Polar crown filaments
> 		XRT sees cavities, and sometimes hot cores of the polar crown
> 			filaments. Is there a complex thermal structure across the
> 			cavity that is visible to EIS?
> 	Quiet Sun
> 		XBPs - use tracking to follow the thermal evolution of XBPs over  
> their
> 			life time. Evolution is slow enough for XRT to use multiple  
> filters.	
> 			Relationship of magnetic evolution and emission/thermal evolution
> 			is key to closing the book on XBPs. They should be the simplest  
> structures
> 			after loops on the sun.
> 		Jets - everyones favorite topic.  Are there specific properties  
> of the reconnection
> 			process that can be understood by observing jets in coronal holes?
> 			What is the jet equivalent of the ribbons in a two ribbon flare?  
> Can we
> 			measure the reconnection rate as the jet foot points spread? I  
> think
> 			disk center CH's are key to understanding here. The vector magnetic
> 			field data from the is not understandable (by me).
> 		CH - is it possible that Fisk's argument is correct? Open fields  
> migrate to regions
> 			with low flux emergence? What is the signature in EIS/XRT of an  
> open
> 			field line reconnecting with emerging flux?
> ===================================================================
>       Dr. Edward E. DeLuca           Smithsonian Astrophysical  
> Observatory
>       edeluca@cfa.harvard.edu     MS 58
> Office 617 496 7725                     60 Garden Street
> Fax     617 496 7577                     Cambridge, MA  02138
> Cell    508 728 5424                     USA
> ===================================================================