**** Logging Started : Wed Oct 29 13:13:58 MET 2003 Participants: Stefan Larsson, Sami Maisala, Jerome Chenevez, Peter Kretschmar, Silvia Martinez-Nuņez, Carol Anne Oxborrow, Niels-Jørgen Westergaard Subjects discussed: Reviewing ADD 8.0 ISDC Rotation Contributions to INTEGRAL workshop #5 Status of OSA 3.0 release Flux normalisation Dates for SDAST meeting in Valencia Action Items: AI031029_1 JC 7/11/2003 Discuss ISDC rotation frequency/length OPEN with NL, not based on observations and draw up new rotation list AI031029_2 PK 7/11/2003 Send CAO area and constant name for the OPEN the ideal detector area used to normalise fluxes AI031029_3 ALL 12/11/2003 Perform circular review of ADD 8.0 OPEN in preparation for ADD Review Chat: Silvia reads entire document NJW reviews PK's component descriptions PK reviews SL's component descriptions SL reviews SM's component descriptions SM reviews CAO's component descriptions CAO reviews NJW's component descriptions Everyone reads and corrects introductory chapters Fine with me ! Could work, though it means taking my lunch a bit early. > Emails with lists of minor corrections are very welcome. END OK Y. > Do what we do: eat your lunch at your desk, Peter END Should I ask Jake (new pipeline person) to compare the ADD with his various pipeline ADDs? END Usually I have a real lunch ... END Miam > Any more comments on ADD work? END N N N n N > Next on the agenda: ISDC rotation. All yours Jerome END It is quite difficult for the moment to schedule anything with the information available from ISOC. So we (CAO and I) are thinking about another strategy consisting in planning regular visits at ISDC (undependently of the observations plan). The problem is that we, at DSRI, may not have enough money to send a representant (say during a couple of days) once a week. So perhaps it could be every two weeks or one a month. If this is OK with Niels and the rest of you of course, I will circulate a plan for these visits involving nine persons, that is a travel every two months at the most. Anyway, there is a GPS planned between Friday and Saturday. I am thinking about the possibility to take to ISDC on Monday and Tuesday, but I wonder if there really is a need... Also considering the short time to find a plane and a hotel. What do you think Peter? END In my personal opinion it could be enough to come once per month if you staid rather for 3-4 full days. About the next GPS - honestly I don't know. Should look up where it's actually pointing at. I agree to the idea of regular visits rather than sudden travels, > Clearly it's more efficient economically speaking to stay for > longer, so I'm all in favour of every 3-4 weeks for 4 days at a time. > END also fewer and longer visits will probably be more useful END The importance is not so much (anymore) to be here so often, than to really make contact with the people here to discuss with the people. END Sorry for the confuse 'talking'. END > Which people exactly? ISDC people or other visitors? END both, I'd imagine END Discuss about what... Analysis results or S/W problems? END Mostly ISDC people by now, but that includes Jerome Rodriguez of the IBIS team who is permantly here and does a lot of work on Galactic sources. When other people are here then naturally also with them. END To Jerome: both as well. Many people here look at the scan data in one way or the other, stumble across problems etc. > Can I put an AI on Jerome to discuss this with NL and firm up > the frequency and length of visits, based on the available travel > money? END OK I agree with the idea of regular visits for a longer stay of 3-4-5 days. Indeed I should do some regular stays at ISDC (every 2 months). Peter is one of my PhD advisor I am really need to have some time with him for discussion. Also I have found that these stays help me in a better understanding of the whole software. END > CAO:tesing testing To Silvia: Then if we say one visitor once a month, your visits will be only partly as JEMX representant and another represntant may be there also at > Shall we say one visitor per month in addition to our trips to the same moment (?) END > ISDC for consortium/SDAST meetings etc.? END I do not think is necessary that other representant stay at the same time that me. But it is true that I will need probably to do more trips than the others. I should discuss this issu with Victor and Peter. I let you know my availability END So we will have to know when you plan to be at ISDC... END Crossing ideas ! I will inform you about my plan as soon as possible END Y > Any more comments on ISDC rotation? END N N N n n > Okay, next point on the agenda: Contributions to the Munich workshop. > Whose planning what, just out of curiosity? END From my side I have: Broadband spectra of Vela X-1 (working title) and coauthorships on several other papers, e.g., SGR 1806-20, GX301-2, Monitoring of accreting pulsars ... END I am writing an abstract for a poster about DSRI's Mosaic tool. END > Stefan how about you? END > I'm planning a poster about gain corrections (and corrections to A GRB paper (at least). END > the corrections) END I'm thinking about "Weak sources in JEMX" and contributing to > I may not be at the workshop itself: I can just send the guys off > with my poster and have a quiet week working on Planck END GRS1915, XTE1720, CygX-3 END In my team we are planning 4 contributions (3 talks and one poster have been requested) : 1. INTEGRAL Observations of the Small Magellanic Cloud 2. SAXJ2103+45, a new peculiar BeX system seen by INTEGRAL 3.High enery spectrum of EXO 2030 during an outburst 4. IR observations -INTEGRAL new sources follow-up . > Sami, any background handling poster from you? END The last one is under discussion. TO Peter: Juan will contact you to be co-author of the last one. ANd i have to talk with Pablo to include you in some of the others. END To Silvia: Thanks! If I remember correctly, they wanted rather non-technical contributions to this workshop, so things should be correlated with scientific results. END to CAO: I'll check what I have... END I forgot ! Victor has also contacted Osmi for a possible contribution on Cynus X-3 (that should be part of my PhD ). But we have not yet received any answer. END > Any more on the workshop and its contributions? END N N N N N N > Next, Status for OSA 3.0 release. Peter? END Well, there are two conflicting drivers: 1. People need OSA3 software soon to work on Munich contributions. 2. Currently, there's still some problems with the ISSW especially from IBIS (though one reason, SPI is not making problems is because they have not delivered much new). There is an OSA current build which is supposedly almost final, but we have not really done scientific validation. If all goes well from now, we'll ship it end of November, I guess. END Regarding JEM-X ISSW, Isabelle asked me to discuss all remaining corrections with you guys today and hopefully have the deliveries THIS FRIDAY THE LATEST. END Peter and Silvia: Does sw_rep_smn still exist? I believe that I need it for > Any comments on OSA 3.0? Do you know which of you still has things testing the background subtraction. END > to deliver? Can you get it done by Friday? END Peter, are you going to write an SPR on j_scripts to change the default values of SPE and LCR paramters or should I do it ? END I can do it after we discussed this here. END The only required updates are on Stefan tools ! Stefan, how is going with your tools ? Are the normalization issue - next point in the agenda - well defined ? END Question of all bkg users:Is there some problems in new executables/models ? END I will redeliver j_src_lc and j_src_spectra by Friday. At the moment I am just waiting for a decition on the normalization issue. On bkg: For my part all (technical) problems have been solved. I still need to do some validation checks. END Implementing, testing and delivery of that is a 24 hr issue. END To NJW: you can use sw_rep_smn until IMA is working fine ! END Besides Stefan's tools there is an open SPR on j_ima_basic_recon! Hmmm, forever then ... ?? END The last formal delivery of that one is quite old ... END > We'll discuss the normalisation issue in a moment Stefan. ENd Peter: I'll see what I can do about it. END It should be a rather simple fix. END The asin one ?? Yes, that's simple END Yes, that one. END > Any more about deliveries etc.? END Not at the moment N N N > Next on the agenda: Flux normalisation. Could someone start the > ball rolling on this one? END Maybe I can do that. The question is what normalisation we should use for our computed fluxes. > And the options are? END That is for sources in IMA, and from extracted spectra and light curves. With normalisation I mean to what area should the flux be normalised. Options are: 1. The actual detector area illuminated by the source. 2. The nominal area corresponding to the on-axis ARF 3. The geometric area of the detector. 4. Flux per cm square. Comments questions suggestions? END Yes -indeed (a) Running the scripts with default parameters we should have as few different normalizations as possible. (b) But for fluxes from the IMA step, solution number 2 above is what is adopted by ISGRI and what our QLA system expects when doing flux comparison. (c) It is very confusing for users if different parameter choices give them different normalizations - at least we should be very clear about this in the instructions. END So how do we best sort this out? END One point: "The nominal area corresponding to the on-axis ARF" is that 490cm2 times 0.24 times 0.87 (geom. area, open fraction, collimator) -> around 100 cm2 ?? END Yes. END That would be my understanding. END Then what you more or less implicitly suggest, Peter, is that IMA changes from 1. to 2. END In that case my proposal from the email three or four days ago on how I guess, yes. In a sense that means calculating 4. and multiplying with a fixed constant. END to keep track of how much area is included becomes relevant. Any comments ? END I like the proposal. END May be I am telling something stupid ! With option 2 the fluxes will be not corrected of vigneting, do they ? And sometime ago we said that vigneting corrected fluxes are required. END Yes, they will be vignetting corrected END Tak NJW ! END > When would this need to be done by? END And with the "used-detector-area-map" the vignetting can be more accurately calculated. "used-detector-area-map" is precisely what I have implemented in the new * njw To CAO: not by Friday. Probably in three weeks. END versions of LCR and SPE extraction. END Stefan: Then I can get the format that you use to see if it makes sense to That sounds too late for OSA3 - though I still would like to see it be there rather sooner than later. END reuse it. Could make life simpler END To keep the schedule, shall we say that _for_the_moment_ IMA fluxes stay as they are (update in preparation), but we agree on one of the schemes to be default for SPE and LCR? END NJ: I will send you the software with comments to let you judge if you can use something of that. END Thanks, Stefan END > If that's all settled, any more comments on normalisation? Jerome > will you need to change your ADD piece about flux units at all? END Peter, do you mean that the fluxes will, at least temparary, not have the same uints in the different places? To CAO: I guess so... END Stefan please send an email to PK and myself with the default parameter values for the scripts. END Flux units - the question goes to all of you: what would you like for spectra/lightcurves? Please cc to me, Stefan END I will. END (incl. cc NJ) END Wouldn't it make sense to use cts/s/102.3cm2 ? END For direct comparison with JMXi-SRCL-RES END Counts/s/cm2 is fine for me... As long as we know what we get and that is constant and common everywhere. END To Jerome: at the moment we can't have it for IMA, the question is if we use it for SPE/LCR or do as NJW proposes and use the same normalization everywhere. END That area is in jemx.h? END Yes I understand that, but will IMA also use the same in the future? END ...I mean the same as SPE/LCR END > I'm not aware of any areas being defined in jemx.h - in the > individual component headers maybe? Send me a value if you want > it included in jemx.h. END I think that it is important to be consistent in IMA/SPE/LCR so we must agree on /cm2 or /102.3cm2 END Stefan, what do you think? END I agree with NJ, we should be consistent. So do you see a problem in changing to cts/s/102.3cm2? I dont mind if it is /cm2 or /102.3cm2 but since you say that IMA result should be compared with results more similar to Question: Does the ISGRI choice have an influence on our decision here ? END the 100cm-sq I guess we should go for that. END Yes, but only a minor. In the short term, I'm rather worried about QLA. END When th expected fluxes are calculated I think (Ken is not here right now) that he assumes rather flux/100cm^2. END I'll vote for /100cm2 - other votes ? END > I'm a non-combatant in this one - what ever you agree on is fine > with me. eND For me /cm2 sounds more genarl, and then everyone can decide to use 100 cm2 or 102.3 cm2 END I'm a quite lost ! My vote is not worthy ! END I agree with Jerome that /100cm2 is more general END Sorry, but I meant /cm2... Not /100cm2 END > Could we please decide between Peter, Stefan, NJW and Jerome. Votes > gentlemen please! END I'd slightly prefer cts/102.3cm^2 which I'd express as counts/idealized detector for users. END Let cut through and make that the final decision! END But with /cm2 you let the user to decide what he/she wants to use END I see your point, Jerome, but that is also possible with the other option END Of course, but you introduce a number which maybe, is not a constant (?) END The idea is to make that number a constant - also introduce it in jemx.h END Is JEMX constant??? END I think we have a 2:1 majority for cts/s/(ideal area) END OK The _ideal_ area is constant. END > Okay, that's decided. Please send me the value for inclusion in > jemx.h, so that we all know what the area is we're dividing by > along with the name of the constant you'd like to use. That's > an AI on Peter to send me the correct value. Jerome will need to > update his ADD piece. > Any more comments? N N N Yes: Let's say good bye... There is cake club now! N > Could we just confirm the dates for the Valencia meeting, so > that we can get on with plane tickets and so on. I've got I agree with Jerome ! I have not yet taken lunch .... !!! Ok, fine Carol Anne ! Our is in 15 minutes..... and I also want to plan for Valencia. AND In Helsinki meeting we said 24th and 25th of November, are those dates fine with everyone ? END > 24-25 November. Is the > that okay with everyone? END Same for me, should be OK. The dates are fine. What start and end? END OK > Presumably we all arrive the day before, so we start 9.00 Monday > and finish early Tuesday (3pm?) so that we've got time to travel > home again. comments? END * jerome The same ! CAO - same procedure as last time END I will prefer to start one hour later at 10:00 and finish a bit late on Monday ok Otherwise, I have to be in Valencia on Sunday afternoon, and I do not like so too much ! END > Fine, but the general dates are agreed? END Y Take into account that restaurant for dinner in Valencia are not opened before 9:00 p.m. The general dates are perfect ! END > Okay, Jerome's getting restive - let's call it a day. There'll be Then see you all in Valencia in a month ! END > a chat next week too, to cover the AI list (long neglected) and the > first impressions of the new ADD. Comments? END TO NJW. Could you please tell me from where I can take the funtools ? END Thanks everybody. Have a nice afternoon. END For Sun Solaris you mean ? END Not for Linux ? I need the source code ! END OK, I'll see what I can do, I'll email to you later END Tusenk tak NJW ! Hej, hej ! END bye everyone ! END *** jerome has left channel #jemxadr : (Bye) hej, tak for nu, bye END *** njw has left channel #jemxadr : (njw) *** Signoff: silvia ( ) > Goodbye everyone - thanks for a productive, and long chat! END Bye *** Signoff: peter (Leaving) bye *** Signoff: larsson ()