SDAST Chat # 117: Thursday 12 October 2006 Participants: Niels Joergen Westergaard, Stephane Paltani, Jerome Chenevez, Carol Anne Oxborrow Subjects discussed: 1) Status of OSA 6.0 release (SP) - SP and others doing testing on OSA6.0 have found discrepancies and worsening of results compared to OSA 5.2. These must be cleared up before the release. Off-axis dependence of Crab spectra and flux overflow from strong sources using forced sources. - Jake Wendt is having problems integrating j_ima_mosaic into the consssa pipeline and these must be sorted out - If new ARF tables are needed they must be delivered before the release and NJW is still testing to see if this is needed. - All agreed that the problems found in new test results must be looked into very closely - Release will not be before the data analysis workshop and participants will work on a pre-release version. 2) Agenda for SDAST meeting at the end of this month - All agreed to add Peter's suggestion of ISWT discussions, also to add discussion of OSA6.0 problems discovered above 3) Status of j_src_properties - hasn't changed since last meeting but need for it has increased with discovery of new problems - Priority is still on improving PIF calculation 4) AI list AI_200906_2, AI_200906_1 are closed. Everything else still ongoing 5) Any other business Our next SDAST chat will be Wednesday 1st November, after the SDAST meeting **** Logging Started : Thu Oct 12 11:07:59 MEST 2006 > Hello folks, sorry I'm late. Sylvia won't be coming today because it's Hello > a national holiday for Christopher Columbus today. I've sent a message to > Peter, but doubt whether he'll be joining us. So let's start where we > were interrupted yesterday: status of OSA 6.0 release. Stephane your turn > I think. END I pretty much sent everything by email yesterday. We have this problem of off-axis dependence. This seems really strange. On the other hand, flux extraction from images seem to work, at least from j_ima_iros. We need now to test with images from j_ima_mosaic. We need also to explain to the users that forced flux extraction does not work for fields that contain a bright source. But this needs to be quantified: How many degrees? To what extent? I think you should try and address this question. There is also the question of the removal of the first parts of the revolution. Is it needed or not? I pause here :-) END For the source contamination quatification: It is not done in a hurry and I think it should be an issue for the SDAST meeting. Similarly the spectral changes (electronic efficiency) between first hour of revolution relative to the later times should be documented and then we can make a decision whether to exclude the first science windows. This * njw is also an SDAST matter. END Does it mean you find acceptable to keep the UM unchanged regarding forced source extraction? END No, there should be a word mentioning this with reference to further onging investigations. END This was known for many months; I tried to quantify the problem with my test on the Crab, but many more tests should have been done END Alright, we need to make a systematic test of this END > Okay, any more on OSA release? Could you telll us when the actual release is > planned Stephane, and how things are going generally with deliveries and > integration? END We need to solve all problems before we can think of doing the release. The most pressing issues are spectral extraction from mosaic images and this problem of off-axis dependence that popped up in j_src_spectra. Also, we never got any answer regarding responses for OSA 6. I presume we need at least some for Rev 0422 and 484. END Is there really an issue regarding extraction from mosaic images or do you mean it has just not been tried yet? END We have not managed to do the testing of the full chain yet, since we were trying to duplicate the testing on Crab that served as a proof of principle. In principle nothing has changed regarding spectral extraction so new * njw ARFs should not be required. I'll make a test. END We should probabky expect some bug fixes. Jerome, you may be required to do one more deluvery. We'll let you know if we find any problem END Niels Jørgen, the lates ARFs go through rev 0365. Did Jem-X magically stabilize after that? END You mean: if you find bugs I will have to remake a delivery, or do you already plan that I will have to make a delivery? END No, there's no bug identified at the moment. END Btw. what is consssa? (See jake email just arrived!) END conssa is the name of a pipeline. It is processing consolidated data for standard analysis. We need to investigate this new problem (just when I said there were no bugs...) END > consssa processes the data that goes into the pipeline, and Jake's the one > who integrates all the new software into this pipeline - he's a handy > chap to know. END Well, conssa _is_ the pipeline! END > I meant the data that goes into the archive, sorry - not really paying > attention, worrying about my own problems. END Yes, I know Jake... I just do not know consssa. I have to see, but it loooks like a parameter problem indeed. END > How's the status with the other instruments? ISGRI in particular? Are we > the only ones holding up the release? END All other instruments are ready to go END I guess OSA 6 won't be ready before the data analysis workshop? END No, but we will have something pretty close. END So the worskhop attendents will play with ~ OSA 6? END Yes END Shall we move on...? END > Well, at least they'll be able to see what's in store for them. Are there > any more comments on OSA 6.0 development? END N N N > Okay, let's move on to the agenda for the SDAST meeting. I take it you've > all ready the various suggested agendas - anything to add/take away? END > Personally I thought Peter's suggestion about ISWT coverage was good. END Has been entered, as well as the two analyses to be done mentioned earlier * njw in the chat END > Good, that's seems to cover everything. Anyone else with other suggestions? > END N N > Is it just me or is this chat going slower that usual - even you DNSC guys > seem to be taking ages to get a reply through. END > Okay, if there's nothing more on the agenda, let's move on to: > Status of j_src_properties. Your turn I think NJW. END The status has not changed very much since last chat. There have been other matters to attend to and we are still fighting to get a reasonable PIF END Who is slow now ? > May I ask what's the status for ISGRI spectral extraction Stephane? END I don't understand your question. What would you like to know? END > I hear that there's some dissatisfaction with their spectral extraction too.END There's some dissatisfaction with INTEGRAL too, and life is not too good either ;-) END > Oh dear, you sound almost as down in the dumps as me. So if there's nothing > happy to say about spectra, let's move on to......AI list ......always a > happy subject! Have any of you taken a look recently? Are there things > that should be done before the SDAST meeting? Anything that's obsolete? > Or OBE? Here's the link, take a look: > http://spacecenter.dk/~oxborrow/sdast/AIList.html OBE? > For myself, I can see that there's AI_200906_2 that is closed. > OBE- Overtaken By Events (an exciting kind of obsolete) END > Also AI35_6 and AI35_8 will take some time coming. I'll let you know at > the meeting. END Mine (AI35_3) will still need a bit of time, I guess... END > Yes, so it would seem. Have you delivered new ARFs (AI_200906_3) NJW? END Hey Carol Anne, do not sleep during the chat meetings!! See above. AI_200906_1 is closed, however END No, they have been delayed END ??? So, do we expect them or not??? You just said they were not needed END * njw I'm checking how well the old ones work - I hope to finish that today END > Thanks for the good news on AI_200906_3 Stephane. END AI_200906_1 he said... END Yes, AI_200906_1, assigned to SB, can be closed; not AI_200906_3 END > That's what I meant - the copy and paste didn't work properly - can copy > from netscape window, but not from zircon window evidently. END > So, if that's all for AI, and I think it is, there's only AOB left. Has > anyone else got anything they want to get off their chests? END Are we done? END No AOB here END N > Yes, I think we're done - our Monday meeting's in 45 minutes. Our next > chat will be after the SDAST meeting, Wednesday 2nd November. See you all > then. END Bye! *** Signoff: stephane (Disconnecting) Bye > Bye bye Good bye! *** njw has left channel #jemxadr : (njw)