|
3rd
August 2006
Well, it's all calmed down a bit and the program is in its final stages. I have not had to display anything on this page to share with supervisors etc., but if you fancy wading through a folder of images most of my graphs and images are available here: Folder of Figures: http://solar.physics.montana.edu/home/www/reu/2006/arussell/figs/ Alternatively, I strongly suggest taking a look at my end of program report. It is available in two forms: a detailed report (similar to a paper); or as slides used for my end of year presentation (treat as a summary, but perhaps best for those with some familiarity). Detailed Report: http://solar.physics.montana.edu/home/www/reu/2006/arussell/report.html Presentation Slides: http://solar.physics.montana.edu/home/www/reu/2006/arussell/pres.html Enjoy! |
26th July 2006 A few days ago I investigated the effect of the flux cutoff on s. Decided to post the figure today. |
25th July 2006 Today I gave quite a bit of consideration to the previous days results,looking for interpretation. As part of this I calculated a new "distribution parameter" (a new, more appropriate name for what I used to call "measures of fragmentation"). This distribution parameter is the variance of ln(flux_of_partition), calculated for each active region. I now believe that the correlation between s^2 and the average flux per partition is a result of method. The correlation between the number of fragments and the active region area (total area of all concentrations in the active region) is a physical result. I interpret it as showing there is a favoured area for each fragment, resulting from the equilibrium between fragmentation and coalenscence of flux tubes. The distance across this area is approximately half the distance across a convective granule. I also computed partial correlations involving flaring. Both distributed parameters showed a negative partial correlation with flaring (flux held constant). The partial correlation between number of fragments and flaring, with flux held constant, was 0.224545. A greater correlation, of 0.574510, was found between the numnber of fragments and log10(flaring) with flux held constant. For comparison, the partial correlation between flux and EF with the number of fragments held constant was 0.239609 - surprisingly low. However, the partial correlation between flux and EF rose to 0.699688 when the variance was held constant instead of the number of fragments. |
Distribution Parameters |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.793453 |
|
Number of Fragments and Total Area |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.972860 |
|
Variance and Flaring |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.0745913 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.118509 |
|
Variance and Other Parameters |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= -0.0369664 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.285858 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.845199 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.388729 |
24th July 2006 Summary: I have developed software to identify concentrations of magnetic flux in magnetograms of solar active regions. This software has been applied to a database of cropped full disk magnetograms. A measure of fragmentation was then sought. In the figures below, this is s2. s is obtained for each active region by fitting a curve to its cdf, the curve assuming flux is lognormally distributed in each region (the validity of this assumption is assessed from the K-S statistic). |
Number of Fragments and Total Flux |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.887227 |
|
Flux and Flaring |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.689946 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.701338 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.710127 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.656532 |
|
Number of Fragments and Flaring |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.687124 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.646884 |
|
s2 and Flaring |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= -0.00731173 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.0359645 |
|
s2 and Other Parameters |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= -0.158929 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.635276 |
|
|
Pearson coeff.= 0.0777658 |
| Welcome | About Me | Research Interests | Research Log | IDL Tools | Photos | Links |