From: SMTP%"lumm@odin.gi.alaska.edu" 3-OCT-1997 13:54:22.87 To: Matt Fillingim CC: Subj: Re: Page updated Return-Path: lumm@odin.gi.alaska.edu Received: by cspara.uah.edu (UCX V4.0-10B, OpenVMS V6.2 Alpha); Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:54:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by odin.gi.alaska.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA27917; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:52:31 -0800 Message-Id: <199710031852.KAA27917@odin.gi.alaska.edu> To: Matt Fillingim cc: germanyg@cspar.uah.edu, BRITT@geophys.washington.edu, JAMES.F.SPANN.JR@msfc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: Page updated In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:36:29 PDT." Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 10:52:30 -0800 From: Dirk Lummerzheim Hi Matt, I noticed your new update earlier today and thought that things look better than before. Glynn's and my power are almost the same, and what you calculate is very close (say within 10-15%), or am I missing the point? One thing that I had noticed is that you do include flatfielding, while I have not done so in the past. I am not sure how much of a difference this will make. I am currently working on April 10, 97, since that is what Aaron at SwRI is interested in, and I have a very difficult time: the viewing geometry and brightness are difficult to deal with, as far as removing dayglow is concerned. So I have started to use the flatfield (f13_sec, and f13_sec_mask) which did improve things. However, coming back to Jan 18, if you did include the flatfield and mask, and I didn't, I think you should have gotten a smaller number (or is the oval small enough that nothing gets clipped by the mask?). Anyway, I'll look into rerunning Jan 18 with the f13_sec flatfield, to see what the difference might be. --Dirk +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dirk Lummerzheim, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska | | lumm@gi.alaska.edu 907 474-7564 http://loke.gi.alaska.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------------+