Intercalibration of SUMER and CDS on SOHO. I. SUMER detector A and CDS
NIS

Anuschka Pauluhn; Isabelle Rüedi; Sami K. Solanki; Jim Lang; C. Dave Pike; Udo Schühle; William T. Thompson; Jörg Hollandt; Martin C. E. Huber

doi:10.1364/AO.38.007035

Applied Optics
Vol. 38,
Issue 34,
pp. 7035-7046
(1999)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.38.007035

Intercalibration of SUMER and CDS on SOHO. I. SUMER detector A and CDS NIS

Anuschka Pauluhn, Isabelle Rüedi, Sami K. Solanki, Jim Lang, C. Dave Pike, Udo Schühle, William T. Thompson, Jörg Hollandt, and Martin C. E. Huber

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Anuschka Pauluhn, Isabelle Rüedi, Sami K. Solanki, Jim Lang, C. Dave Pike, Udo Schühle, William T. Thompson, Jörg Hollandt, and Martin C. E. Huber, "Intercalibration of SUMER and CDS on SOHO. I. SUMER detector A and CDS NIS," Appl. Opt. 38, 7035-7046 (1999)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Abstract

The results of an intercalibration between the extreme ultraviolet spectrometers Coronal Diagnostic Spectrometer (CDS) and Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation (SUMER) onboard the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) are presented. During the joint observing program Intercal_01, CDS and SUMER were pointed at the same locations in quiet Sun areas and observed in the same wavelength bands located around the spectral lines He i 584 Å, Mg x 609 Å, and Mg x 624 Å. The data sets analyzed here consist of raster images recorded by the CDS normal-incidence spectrometer and SUMER detector A and span the time from March 1996 to August 1996. Effects of the different spatial and spectral resolutions of both instruments have been investigated and taken into account in the analysis. We find that CDS measures generally a 30% higher intensity than SUMER in the He i 584-Å line, while it measures 9% and 17% higher intensities in Mg x 609 Å and Mg x 624 Å, respectively. Both instruments show very good temporal correlation and stability, indicating that solar variations dominate over changes in instrumental sensitivity. Our analysis also provides in-flight estimates of the CDS spatial point-spread functions.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Intercalibration of SUMER and CDS on SOHO. II. SUMER detectors A and B and CDS NIS

Anuschka Pauluhn, Isabelle Rüedi, Sami K. Solanki, Udo Schühle, Klaus Wilhelm, Jim Lang, William T. Thompson, and Jörg Hollandt
Appl. Opt. 40(34) 6292-6300 (2001)

Intercalibration of SUMER and CDS on SOHO. III. SUMER and CDS-GIS

Anuschka Pauluhn, Jim Lang, Eddie R. Breeveld, Sami K. Solanki, and Udo Schühle
Appl. Opt. 42(4) 657-666 (2003)

Radiometric calibration of the vacuum-ultraviolet spectrograph SUMER on the SOHO spacecraft with the B detector

Udo Schühle, Werner Curdt, Jörg Hollandt, Uri Feldman, Philippe Lemaire, and Klaus Wilhelm
Appl. Opt. 39(3) 418-425 (2000)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (12)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (4)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (1)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Date	CrossCorrelation	x Width, y Width (arc sec)	x Shift, y Shift (arc sec)	Δt (min)
He i (584 Å)
0325	0.79	7.0, 7.5	(-9.12, -25)	1
0410	0.88	14.6, 13.6	(-1.52, 4)	4
0514	0.74	7.9, 15.9	(-6.84,-15)	10
0528	0.60	10.2, 8.5	(-6.08,-141)	10
0618	0.79	5.5, 8.7	(46.36,-7)	42
0816	0.75	9.9, 8.2	(-0.76,-21)	1
0826	0.83	9.8, 16.9	(0.76,-6)	4
Mg x (609 Å)
0325	0.65	8.0, 11.0	(-19.76,-26)	4
0410	0.90	15.0, 30.0	(-12.92, 4)	2
0514	—	—	—	—
0528	0.77	7.9, 8.9	(-13.68,-142)	4
0618	0.77	8.1, 13.0	(41.80,-9)	112
0816	0.68	14.6, 18.7	(-16.72,-19)	23
0826	0.83	9.5, 13.8	(-5.32,-4)	3
Mg x (624 Å)
0325	0.60	11.2, 19.3	(-19.76,-26)	4
0410	0.96	13.1, 30.0	(-12.92, 4)	2
0514	—	—	—	—
0528	0.75	8.2, 11.1	(-13.68,-142)	4
0618	0.76	10.6, 12.1	(41.80,-9)	112
0816	0.69	16.7, 30.0	(-16.72,-19)	23
0826	0.81	10.5, 13.1	(-5.32,-4)	3

Date	Slope		Constant		One-Parameter Fit
Date	No PSF	With PSF	No PSF	With PSF	No PSF	With PSF
0325	0.899	0.676	-0.105	0.006	0.654	0.696
0410	0.850	0.697	-0.108	0.006	0.666	0.714
0514	0.915	0.682	-0.142	-0.001	0.653	0.682
0528	0.782	0.590	-0.077	0.024	0.610	0.637
0618	0.908	0.586	-0.133	0.059	0.670	0.693
0816	0.837	0.593	-0.065	0.069	0.697	0.739
0826	0.889	0.682	-0.086	0.036	0.705	0.760
Average	0.869 ± 0.048	0.644 ± 0.051	-0.100 ± 0.031	0.028 ± 0.027	0.665 ± 0.031	0.703 ± 0.040
From Figs. 10/11	0.858	0.677	-0.094	0.014	0.668	0.646

Date	Slope		Constant		One-Parameter Fit
Date	No PSF	With PSF	No PSF	With PSF	No PSF	With PSF
0325	0.999	0.732	-0.004	0.016	0.962	0.977
0410	0.823	0.764	0.004	0.014	0.878	0.909
0528	0.788	0.575	0.009	0.025	0.944	0.942
0618	0.733	0.552	0.018	0.033	0.962	0.974
0816	0.854	0.686	0.004	0.016	0.928	0.941
0826	0.856	0.661	0.004	0.021	0.927	0.949
Average	0.842 ± 0.008	0.659 ± 0.080	0.006 ± 0.007	0.020 ± 0.007	0.934 ± 0.031	0.949 ± 0.025
From Figs. 10/11	0.819	0.722	0.007	0.016	0.927	0.945

	Slope		Constant		One-Parameter Fit
	No PSF	With PSF	No PSF	With PSF	No PSF	With PSF
0325	0.871	0.732	-0.001	0.003	0.824	0.840
0410	1.067	0.984	-0.007	-0.003	0.837	0.870
0528	1.040	0.720	-0.005	0.003	0.825	0.823
0618	0.804	0.673	-0.001	0.003	0.769	0.774
0816	0.967	0.835	-0.003	0.001	0.854	0.867
0826	0.859	0.678	-0.003	0.003	0.759	0.774
Average	0.935 ± 0.106	0.770 ± 0.120	-0.003 ± 0.002	0.002 ± 0.002	0.811 ± 0.038	0.826 ± 0.045
From Figs. 10/11	1.019	0.932	-0.006	-0.003	0.813	0.829

Date	CrossCorrelation	x Width, y Width (arc sec)	x Shift, y Shift (arc sec)	Δt (min)
He i (584 Å)
0325	0.79	7.0, 7.5	(-9.12, -25)	1
0410	0.88	14.6, 13.6	(-1.52, 4)	4
0514	0.74	7.9, 15.9	(-6.84,-15)	10
0528	0.60	10.2, 8.5	(-6.08,-141)	10
0618	0.79	5.5, 8.7	(46.36,-7)	42
0816	0.75	9.9, 8.2	(-0.76,-21)	1
0826	0.83	9.8, 16.9	(0.76,-6)	4
Mg x (609 Å)
0325	0.65	8.0, 11.0	(-19.76,-26)	4
0410	0.90	15.0, 30.0	(-12.92, 4)	2
0514	—	—	—	—
0528	0.77	7.9, 8.9	(-13.68,-142)	4
0618	0.77	8.1, 13.0	(41.80,-9)	112
0816	0.68	14.6, 18.7	(-16.72,-19)	23
0826	0.83	9.5, 13.8	(-5.32,-4)	3
Mg x (624 Å)
0325	0.60	11.2, 19.3	(-19.76,-26)	4
0410	0.96	13.1, 30.0	(-12.92, 4)	2
0514	—	—	—	—
0528	0.75	8.2, 11.1	(-13.68,-142)	4
0618	0.76	10.6, 12.1	(41.80,-9)	112
0816	0.69	16.7, 30.0	(-16.72,-19)	23
0826	0.81	10.5, 13.1	(-5.32,-4)	3

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (12)

Tables (4)

Equations (1)

Applied Optics