1. Laboratoire de Physique des Plasmas C ROSS C ALIBRATION STAFF R EPORT 24-26 TH M ARCH 2015 L EIDEN Prepared by R. Piberne & R. Katra Laboratoire de Physique des Plasmas Ecole Polytechnique, France

2. Plan 1.Status of software development 2.Status of experiment calibration / cross calibration 3.Status of dataset delivery 4.Delivery plan 5.Open issues 6.Production issues 2Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015

3. 1. Status of software development  STAFF-SC All the production pipelines are operational.  STAFF-SA All the production pipelines are operational. L3 data production pipeline will be upgraded soon 3Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015

4. 1. Status of software development STAFF-SA L3 PPP upgrade  Software updates -Addition of the status -New calibration tables -Matching gaps with FGM [ STA13-Ai-01 ] -Adapt our production pipeline to FGM re-deliveries -Keep record of the FGM file used (name/version) to produce the PPP file -Production per FGM file +Testing  Re-process the whole dataset (2001-2014)  Deliver the whole dataset & headers 4Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015

5. 2. Status of Experiment Calibration / Cross Calibration 5 A)STAFF-SA  Calibration : no changes B) STAFF-SC  Calibration : no changes Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015

6. 3. Status of dataset delivery Product 00* 0102030405060708091011121314 DWFDDDDDDDDDDDDDDP CWF_ISR2DDDDDDDDDDDDDDP CWF_GSEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDP CSDDDDDDDDDDDDDDP SC_SPECTRODDDDDDDDDDDDDDP AGCDDDDDDDDDDDDDD PSDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD SMDDDDDDDDDDDDDD PPP FGM needed DDDDDDDDDDDDD(P) HKDDDDDDDDDDDDDD CAVEATS DATASETS NOTSRPDDDDDDDDDDDDDD PSDNEGDDDDDDDDDDDDDD UNDEFINED_MFA With PPP DDDDDDDDDDDDD(P) CALIBRATIONDDDDDDDDDDDDDP D = delivered [number indicates version] P = partial delivery R = (ongoing) reprocessing 6Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015 00* = November & December 2000 (Commissioning phase)

7. 4. Delivery Plan Year of delivery Product 20152016 SC DWFEnd 2014 - 1st half 2015End 2015 - 1st half 2016 SC Complex SpectraEnd 2014 - 1st half 2015End 2015 - 1st half 2016 SC ImagesEnd 2014 - 1st half 2015End 2015 - 1st half 2016 SC CWF GSEEnd 2014 - 1st half 2015End 2015 - 1st half 2016 SC CWF ISR2End 2014 - 1st half 2015End 2015 - 1st half 2016 SA AGC / PSD / SM2014 - 1st half 20152015 - 1st half 2016 SA PPP20142015 House Keeping plots20152016 7Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015

8. 5. Open Issues – Data Quality 8Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015 Inconsistencies have been pointed out by some of the action items: “Why do Calibrated Spectra (CS) sometimes have data while Calibrated WaveForms (CWF) have not ?” ( STA13-Ai-06 ) “Why are CS and CWF both empty during BM/NM with no obvious reason ?” ( STA13-Ai-04/05 )  Rare cases due to bad telemetry (other cases to be found and investigated)

9. Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015  If regularly hatched, the calibration can result in having hatched CS while having absolutely no CWF. CS: stripped plot indicates hatched telemetry.

10. CS default calibration windows sizes: NBR 256 pts. HBR 4096 pts. NBR plotHBR plot Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015 Missing pts. induce more unresolved calibration windows.

11. 5. Open Issues – Data quality  Waveform Calibration needs continuity in the time series  Default parameters (size of the calibration window) = compromises to fit most cases  When there’s no continuity: -depending on the size of the holes, some data could still be recovered by changing the size of the calibration window -inform the user of the data quality 11Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015

12. 5. Open Issues – Data quality  Waveform Calibration behaviour – to be documented in UG, CR – include this kind of info in a quality file Parameters and their influence on the result + hatched telemetry How to produce his/her own calibrated file 12 DWF + Calibration software Information Production tool Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015

13. 5. Open Issues – Data quality 13  Now starting to file bad quality data cases to feed the reflection on the contents of the documentation about data quality Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015

14. 5. Open Issues – Data quality Best way to distribute data quality information (Quality File)  would explain inconsistency cases and their causes (e.g: bad telemetry and calibration behaviour)  List the cases corrupting/reducing data quality (recently started, on-going process)  How to mark / tag / qualify them (Quality index)  Possibility to identify them automatically 14  Algorithm  Software Development  Tests Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015

15. 6. Production issues Frequent and sometimes unexpected power-offs due to construction sites around  disrupting the production Our main production unit (Tamaya) became unstable and has to be frequently rebooted, also disrupting the production. These problems are adding to the team workload Now installing a new production unit (lots of copying/testing/checking)...... and a new 80To storage solution. 15Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015

16. Appendix A CS and CWF calibration methods differ:  CS uses ‘Spectrum Calibration’ - NBR default window : 256 pts - HBR default window : 4096 pts - Calibration window entirely shifts  CWF uses ‘Continuous Calibration’ - NBR default window : 1024 pts - HBR default window : 4096 pts - Calibration window shift = 2 points (default) 16Cross Calibration – 24-26 th March 2015