Finally, a quick comment on the paper. I was expecting to see some Monte
Carlo simulations and least-square fits to the resulting data. Isn't the
real question how many lines and what level of uncertainty do we need to
determine the emission measure.
Best wishes,
Harry
On 9/23/10 10:20 AM, "Markus J. Aschwanden" <
aschwanden@lmsal.com> wrote:
Friends,
I'm glad to see that the EM loci method is put on a more quantitative basis,
especially in relationship to Gaussian DEM functions with variable temperature
spread. While the two methods can now being used interchangably thanks to
this recent nice study of Landi and Klimchuk, the biggest diagnostic problem
for
coronal loops is (in my view) still the proper background subtraction.
Every contaminations from background fluxes introduces always a bias
towards broader multi-thermal DEMs. This problem is even worse for AIA
data, because more filters involve more confusion.
Looking forward to a patented background subtraction technique.
Cheers,
Markus
--
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------
// Harry P. Warren phone : 202-404-1453
// Naval Research Laboratory fax : 202-404-7997
// Code 7673HW email :
hwarren@nrl.navy.mil// Washington, DC 20375 www :
http://tcrb.nrl.navy.mil/~hwarren// ---------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Loops mailing list
Loops@solar.physics.montana.eduhttps://mithra.physics.montana.edu/mailman/listinfo/loops