[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
xrt_co: - Fwd: GMU draft agenda
Hi,
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.
Thanks,
Ed
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
> ===================================================================
>
>