Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Improved magnetogram calibration of SMFT and its comparison with the HMI

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1409.4869 v1 pith:ZT64A3JV submitted 2014-09-17 astro-ph.SR

Improved magnetogram calibration of SMFT and its comparison with the HMI

classification astro-ph.SR
keywords fieldcalibrationmagneticsmftstrengthcomparisonazimuthcase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we try to improve the magnetogram calibration method of the Solar Magnetic Field Telescope (SMFT). The improved calibration process fits the observed full Stokes information, using six points on the profile of Fe {\i} 5324.18 {\AA} line, and the analytical Stokes profiles under the Milne-Eddington atmosphere model, adopting the Levenberg-Marquardt least-square fitting algorithm. In Comparison with the linear calibration methods, which employs one point, there is large difference in the strength of longitudinal field $B_l$ and tranverse field $B_t$, caused by the non-linear relationship, but the discrepancy is little in the case of inclination and azimuth. We conclude that it is better to deal with the non-linear effects in the calibration of $B_l$ and $B_t$ using six points. Moreover, in comparison with SDO/HMI, SMFT has larger stray light and acquires less magnetic field strength. For vector magnetic fields in two sunspot regions, the magnetic field strength, inclination and azimuth angles between SMFT and HMI are roughly in agrement, with the linear fitted slope of 0.73/0.7, 0.95/1.04 and 0.99/1.1. In the case of pores and quiet regions ($B_l$ $<$ 600 G), the fitted slopes of the longitudinal magnetic field strength are 0.78 and 0.87 respectively.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.