Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Calibration of AIRS SRFs
L. Larrabee Strow
Scott E. Hannon
Howard E. Motteler
U M B C
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
MARYLAND BALTIM
OR
E C
OU
NTY
1 9 6 6
Department of Physics
University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC)
Baltimore, MD 21250
L. Strow, UMBC 1
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Overview
• Grating Model Fits and Fringe Removal
• Sensitivity of Centroids (Y-offset), Focal Length, Widths to
Temperature
• Model Fits to SRFs: Wings, Center Region
• Absolute Calibration with CO Trace Gas, Air Gap Spectra
L. Strow, UMBC 2
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits
• Fringe removal using summed SRFs very successful
• SRF Centroids all move togther with temperature
• Focal length, widths insensitive to temperature
• Slight quadratic error in grating model fits to centroids (1% of
width level)
L. Strow, UMBC 3
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model
m� � d�sin��i�� sin��d�� (1)
�d�k; i� � tan�1
ykiF
!(2)
yi is the detector position in the focal plan, and F is the focal length of the
focusing mirror, and k is an index assigned to each array. We use the fact
that each AIRS detector is 50 �m wide to write yi for each array k as
yki � ykoffset � 50� �i� 1�� 25 �microns�: (3)
ymoffset is therefore the position in the dispersed direction of the short
wavelength side of each array. Note the the grating order m depends on k,
as does �i.
We fit the SRF centroids for each array to this model, letting ymoffset and Fvary.
L. Strow, UMBC 4
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Summed SRFs as an Estimate of Channeling
A good estimate of the fringe effects is given by
Festsum � P
i SobsPi Sestg
!(4)
where the sum over i is over all individual SRFs in the array. Sestg is our best
estimate of the “pure” SRFs, without fringes.
We then divide each individual SRF by Festsum to remove the effects of fringing,
and minimize via the grating model
minGM
Sestg � Sobs
Festmeas
2
: (5)
This notation is not formally correct in that we are not minimizing the
different between the Sestg and Sobs=Festmeas but minimizing the difference
between the widths and centroids we derive from Sobs=Festmeas (using a
numerical peak and width finder) and the widths/centroids from the grating
model.
L. Strow, UMBC 5
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Example Grating Model Fits (Red=Raw Data, Blue=Fringes Removed)
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M4d, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:93%
1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M5, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:93%
1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 6
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
GM Fit Errors if Channels 82/83, 118/119 Included
−10
−5
0
5
10%
obs
−ca
lc c
ente
rs
Test:1621, M12; With Channels 82/83, 118/119
645 650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685−20
−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
<−− Channels 82/83
L. Strow, UMBC 7
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
GM Fit Errors if Channels 82/83, 118/119 Removed
−2
−1
0
1
2%
obs
−ca
lc c
ente
rs
Test:1621, Module: M12, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:95%
645 650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685−20
−15
−10
−5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 8
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Tests Used in Grating Model Analysis
T=149K
1616 1619 1620 1621 1622 1625
A A B Opt A B
---------------------------------------------------------
T=155K (except M2b)
1479 1480 1481 1484 1487 1488 1496 1498
B Opt A B B Opt Opt Opt
Module 2b only
1479 1480 1481 1484
B Opt A B
---------------------------------------------------------
T=161
1403 1406 1408 1409 1414 1415 1416 1418 1419
A B Opt A B Opt A Opt Opt
Module 2b only
DELETE 1419 (Opt)
L. Strow, UMBC 9
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Bad Channels, Possibly Not Previously Detected?
Channels deleted from fits that we deemed OK via
our noise criteria.
M12 118 119 82 83 9 10
M11 141 142 143
M10 29 30 37 38
M4d 14 15 86 87 88
M4b 27:35 49
M4a 78
M3 163:169
M2b 1:11 116
M1b 44 121:130
M1a 112:118
L. Strow, UMBC 10
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Array Y-offset versus Temperature
148 150 152 154 156 158 160 162−20
−15
−10
−5
0
5
10
15
Grating Temperature (K)
Y−
offs
et in
mic
rons
149K−155K Slope: 2.37 microns/deg155K−161K Slope: 2.14 microns/deg
Red line: M5Green line: M12
L. Strow, UMBC 11
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Sensitivity of Centroids to Y-Offset
1000 1500 2000 2500
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.1
1.12
1.14
Wavenumber (cm−1)
Cen
troi
d E
rror
in %
of W
idth
Error for 1 µm Y−Offset Error
L. Strow, UMBC 12
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Variation of Focal Length with Temperature
148 150 152 154 156 158 160 162−30
−20
−10
0
10
20
30
40
Grating Temperature (K)
Foc
al L
engt
h (m
icro
ns) Green line: M12
Red line: M5
L. Strow, UMBC 13
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Sensitivity of Centroids to Focal Length
500 1000 1500 2000 2500−5
−4
−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Wavenumber (cm−1)
Cen
troi
d E
rror
in %
of W
idth
50 µm error20 µm error10 µm error
L. Strow, UMBC 14
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Sensitivity of Centroids to Focal Length (Zoom)
1000 1500 2000 2500
−2
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Wavenumber (cm−1)
Cen
troi
d E
rror
in %
of W
idth
50 µm error20 µm error10 µm error
L. Strow, UMBC 15
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Variation of Absolute Focal Lengths with Array
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2−400
−300
−200
−100
0
100
200
300
400
500
1a
2a
1b
2b
4a
4b
3
4c
4d
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Focal Length vs Y Offset
Y Offset (cm)
Rel
ativ
e F
ocal
Len
gth
(mic
rons
)
L. Strow, UMBC 16
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Variation of SRF Width with Temperature – I
148 150 152 154 156 158 160 162−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Grating Temperature (K)
Wid
th V
aria
tion
in %
Green line: M12Red line: M8
L. Strow, UMBC 17
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Variation of SRF Width with Temperature – II
1000 1500 2000 2500
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Wavenumber (cm−1)
Wid
th V
aria
tion
in %
T149 vs T155T155 vs T161T149 vs T161
L. Strow, UMBC 18
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Fitting SRFs to an Analytic Model
• Eventually fit wings and center portions separately (maybe 3 wings will
be used for short/mid/long-wave).
• Data shown here are fits to wing and center togther, with good starting
estimates for the wing. Actually fit: 20% of log of SRF plus 80% linear SRF.
• Primarily interested in quality of analytical model fits to center region.
• Using H. Aumann’s hybrid Gaussian/Lorentz model
• Main conclusions:
– Slight wavenumber dependence on wings
– sinc2 diffraction evident in SRFs at the 1.5 - 4% level? Quite large for
M11/M12.
– Taking diffraction into account in model may improve computation of
fringe signal!
– Small residual asymmetries remain in SRFs, easy to handle
– Bruker aligned, our Bruker model follows data
L. Strow, UMBC 19
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Analytic Model
We are using an analytic model the the SRFs that was suggest by H. Aumann.
SRF�x� � gf�e�log�2�x
Ge�� �1� gf �
�1
�1� xLe�
�
where
x � j� � �ij�0:5� i�
and i is the 50% full width of the SRF. Typically,
gf � 0:975; Ge � 3:0; Le � 1:8:
At x � 1, SRF � 0:5 regardless of the values of the other variables.
The Gaussian term dies off quickly past � 1 full width away from �i so the
model is essentially a pure Lorentzian in the wing.
Note: gf stands for “Gaussian fraction”, Ge for “Gaussian exponent”, and Lefor “Lorentz exponent”.
L. Strow, UMBC 20
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Averaged SRFs, Dotted Line is Standard Deviation over Arrays
−300 −200 −100 0 100 200 300
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Microns from SRF Center
SR
F M
agni
tude
Longwave Midwave Shortwave
L. Strow, UMBC 21
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Wings
2598 2600 2602 2604 2606 2608 261010
−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
2356 2358 2360 2362 2364 2366 236810
−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
L. Strow, UMBC 22
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Wings
2498 2500 2502 2504 2506 2508 251010
−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
2244 2246 2248 2250 2252 2254 225610
−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
L. Strow, UMBC 23
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Wings
1384 1386 1388 1390 1392 1394
10−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
1572 1574 1576 1578 1580 1582
10−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
L. Strow, UMBC 24
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Wings
1486 1488 1490 1492 1494 1496 1498
10−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
1306 1308 1310 1312 1314 1316
10−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
L. Strow, UMBC 25
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Wings
1238 1240 1242 1244 1246 1248 1250
10−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098
10−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
L. Strow, UMBC 26
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Wings
1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014
10−3
10−2
10−1
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
938 939 940 941 942 943 944
10−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
L. Strow, UMBC 27
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Wings
875 876 877 878 879 880 881
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
817 818 819 820 821 82210
−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
L. Strow, UMBC 28
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Wings
750 752 754 756 758
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
+ 0
.005
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
702 704 706 708 710 712
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
+ 0
.005
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
L. Strow, UMBC 29
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Wings
662 664 666 668 670 672
10−2
10−1
100
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F V
alue
+ 0
.005
Data Fit |Obs−Calc|
L. Strow, UMBC 30
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
�3% Peak-Peak Oscillations Center Part of SRFs
• All arrays exhibit these oscillations in their obs-calcs for a symmetric SRFmodel.
• These oscillations are coherent between arrays (in position-units)
• Maximum modulation is about 4%, in M12.
• They are probably due to sinc2 oscillations in SRF due to diffraction. H.Aumann has modelled this behavior 5+ years ago, appears consistent.
• Can estimate beam size on grating from period of oscillations. Peakseparation in sinc is d�pp � �
beff, where beff is the effective size of beam
on grating. On focal plane, �ypp � Fd�pp � F �beff
, or beff � F��ypp .
• If portion of grating used is determined by diffraction from entrance slit,then beff � 2F#g�, also proportional to �.
• Equating these two expressions and solving for F#g we get 2,825. A/CHHA correct F#g is �2000!
• This beam size leads to a resolving power of 2700 higher than AIRSspectral resolution (as expected), which is limited by slit sizes.
L. Strow, UMBC 31
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Center Region
0
0.51
Blu
e: S
RF
; R
ed: 1
0 x
(obs
−ca
lc)
0
0.51 0
0.51
−15
0−
100
−50
050
100
150
0
0.51
SR
F P
ositi
on in
Mic
rons
<−−− SRF Magnitude −−−>
M1a
M2a
M1b
M2b
L. Strow, UMBC 32
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Center Region
0
0.51
Blu
e: S
RF
; R
ed: 1
0 x
(obs
−ca
lc)
0
0.51 0
0.51
−15
0−
100
−50
050
100
150
0
0.51
SR
F P
ositi
on in
Mic
rons
<−−− SRF Magnitude −−−>
M4a
M4b
M3
M4c
L. Strow, UMBC 33
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Center Region
0
0.51
Blu
e: S
RF
; R
ed: 1
0 x
(obs
−ca
lc)
0
0.51 0
0.51
−10
0−
500
5010
0
0
0.51
SR
F P
ositi
on in
Mic
rons
<−−− SRF Magnitude −−−>
M4d
M5
M6
M7
L. Strow, UMBC 34
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Center Region
0
0.51
Blu
e: S
RF
; R
ed: 1
0 x
(obs
−ca
lc)
0
0.51 0
0.51
−15
0−
100
−50
050
100
150
0
0.51
SR
F P
ositi
on in
Mic
rons
<−−− SRF Magnitude −−−>
M8
M9
M10
M11
L. Strow, UMBC 35
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Model Fit Results: Center Region
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
SRF Position in Microns
SR
F M
agni
tude
SRF 10 x (obs−calcs)
M12
L. Strow, UMBC 36
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Short/Mid/Long-wave Obs-Calc Averages
−0.02
0
0.02
−0.01
0
0.01
0.02
−100 −50 0 50 100−0.01
0
0.01
0.02
Microns from SRF Center
<−
−−
SR
F F
it O
bs−
Cal
c −
−−
>
Shortwave
Midwave
Longwave
L. Strow, UMBC 37
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Asymmetry
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 1500
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Y−Offset in Microns
SR
F M
agni
tude
SRF Obs/Calc
M1a
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 1500
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Y−Offset in Microns
SR
F M
agni
tude
SRF Obs/Calc
M2a
L. Strow, UMBC 38
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
SRF Asymmetry
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 1500
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4 SRF Obs/Calc
M4a
−100 −50 0 50 1000
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4 SRF Obs/Calc
M4d
L. Strow, UMBC 39
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Effect of Bruker on Shortwave SRFs
2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 23660
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Wavenumber (cm−1)
SR
F M
agni
tude
SRF 10 x (Bruker − No Bruker)
L. Strow, UMBC 40
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Parameters from SRF Model Ftis
0.9
0.95
1G
aus.
Fra
c
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
Gau
s. E
xp.
1000 1500 2000 25001
2
3
Wavenumber (cm−1)
Lor.
Exp
.
L. Strow, UMBC 41
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Increase in SRF Fitted Width with Bruker Effects Included
1000 1500 2000 2500
1
1.005
1.01
1.015
1.02
1.025
Wavenumber (cm−1)
Wid
th M
ultip
lier
L. Strow, UMBC 42
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Absolute Calibration
• CO trace gas data indicates that we need to subtract 0.09 cm�1 from the
apodization corrected wavenumber scale at 2193 cm�1.
• Combined apodization correction and offset correction is
�true � �1� 6:944� 10�5 � 0:09=2193�� �obs
• Comparison with air gap data shows a difference of 0.03 cm�1 between
what we measure, and what is calculated with the above equation (so far
this includes on 149 and 155K data).
• This comparison assumes that we have correctly computed the
apodization correction (uniform beam, known size, etc.)
• Another way to say this: the Bruker apodization correction is always
about 3x too large.
• This comparison does indicate that our absolute wavenumber scale is
probably sufficient for calibration of the channel spectra.
• CO spectra appear very symmetric! Bruker well-aligned.
L. Strow, UMBC 43
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
CO Trace Gas Spectrum
2190 2200 2210 2220 2230 2240 22500.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1P
seud
o T
rans
mis
sion
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 44
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
CO Trace Gas Spectrum – Zoom
2186 2188 2190 2192 21940.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1P
seud
o T
rans
mis
sion
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 45
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Following Slides
The following slides are the residuals for grating models fits to all arrays for
Test 1621.
1. The first 17 graphs show residuals after removal of the entrance filter
channeling by dividing each SRF by the the ratio of the sum (for each
array) of the observed SRFs to the modeled SRFs.
2. The second 17 graphs show the same residuals as in (1), but also show
the residuals if the raw SRF is fit to the grating model without removal of
the channeling.
L. Strow, UMBC 46
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits, Fringes Removed
−0.5
0
0.5
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M1a, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:92%
2540 2560 2580 2600 2620 2640 2660 2680−3.5
−3
−2.5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M1b, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:92%
2280 2300 2320 2340 2360 2380 2400 2420 2440−6
−5
−4
−3
−2
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 47
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits, Fringes Removed
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M2a, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:94%
2440 2460 2480 2500 2520 2540 2560 2580−6
−5
−4
−3
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M2b, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:90%
2180 2200 2220 2240 2260 2280 2300 2320 2340−5.5
−5
−4.5
−4
−3.5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 48
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits, Fringes Removed
−2
−1
0
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M3, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:96%
1320 1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460−7
−6.5
−6
−5.5
−5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−0.5
0
0.5
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M4a, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:95%
1540 1550 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 1620−7
−6
−5
−4
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 49
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits, Fringes Removed
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M4b, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:85%
1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530−8
−7
−6
−5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M4c, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:98%
1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340−8
−7
−6
−5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 50
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits, Fringes Removed
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M4d, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:93%
1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280−8
−7
−6
−5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M5, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:93%
1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140−7
−6
−5
−4
−3
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 51
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits, Fringes Removed
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M6, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:92%
970 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050−10
−8
−6
−4
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M7, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:90%
910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980−10
−9
−8
−7
−6
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 52
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits, Fringes Removed
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M8, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:85%
850 860 870 880 890 900 910−12
−10
−8
−6
−4
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M9, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:84%
780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850 860−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 53
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits, Fringes Removed
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M10, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:92%
720 730 740 750 760 770 780 790−14
−12
−10
−8
−6
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M11, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:97%
680 690 700 710 720 730−14
−12
−10
−8
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 54
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits, Fringes Removed
−2
−1
0
1
2%
obs
−ca
lc c
ente
rs
Test:1621, Module: M12, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:95%
645 650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685−20
−15
−10
−5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 55
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits: Red-Raw Data, Blue-Fringes Removed
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M1a, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:92%
2540 2560 2580 2600 2620 2640 2660 2680−6
−5
−4
−3
−2
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M1b, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:92%
2280 2300 2320 2340 2360 2380 2400 2420 2440−6
−5
−4
−3
−2
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 56
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits: Red-Raw Data, Blue-Fringes Removed
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M2a, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:94%
2440 2460 2480 2500 2520 2540 2560 2580−6
−5
−4
−3
−2
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M2b, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:90%
2180 2200 2220 2240 2260 2280 2300 2320 2340−8
−6
−4
−2
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 57
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits: Red-Raw Data, Blue-Fringes Removed
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M3, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:96%
1320 1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M4a, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:95%
1540 1550 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 1620−20
−10
0
10
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 58
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits: Red-Raw Data, Blue-Fringes Removed
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M4b, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:85%
1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M4c, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:98%
1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 59
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits: Red-Raw Data, Blue-Fringes Removed
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M4d, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:93%
1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M5, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:93%
1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 60
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits: Red-Raw Data, Blue-Fringes Removed
−4
−2
0
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M6, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:92%
970 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M7, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:90%
910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 61
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits: Red-Raw Data, Blue-Fringes Removed
−2
−1
0
1
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M8, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:85%
850 860 870 880 890 900 910−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
0
2
4
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M9, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:84%
780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850 860−15
−10
−5
0
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 62
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits: Red-Raw Data, Blue-Fringes Removed
−4
−2
0
2
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M10, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:92%
720 730 740 750 760 770 780 790−15
−10
−5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
−2
0
2
4
% o
bs−
calc
cen
ters
Test:1621, Module: M11, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:97%
680 690 700 710 720 730−15
−10
−5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 63
AIRS: February 2000 Calibration Review
Grating Model Fits: Red-Raw Data, Blue-Fringes Removed
−4
−2
0
2
4%
obs
−ca
lc c
ente
rs
Test:1621, Module: M12, Gain:Opt, Good Chans:95%
645 650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685−20
−15
−10
−5
% o
bs−
calc
wid
ths
Wavenumber (cm−1)
L. Strow, UMBC 64
