**** Logging Started : Wed Oct 29 13:13:58 MET 2003

Participants: Stefan Larsson, Sami Maisala, Jerome Chenevez, Peter Kretschmar,
	Silvia Martinez-Nuez, Carol Anne Oxborrow, Niels-Jrgen Westergaard

Subjects discussed: Reviewing ADD 8.0
		ISDC Rotation
		Contributions to INTEGRAL workshop #5
		Status of OSA 3.0 release
		Flux normalisation
		Dates for SDAST meeting in Valencia
		
Action Items: 

AI031029_1	JC	7/11/2003	Discuss ISDC rotation frequency/length
OPEN			with NL, not based on observations and draw up new
			rotation list

AI031029_2	PK	7/11/2003	Send CAO area and constant name for the
OPEN			the ideal detector area used to normalise fluxes

AI031029_3	ALL	12/11/2003	Perform circular review of ADD 8.0
OPEN			in preparation for  ADD Review Chat:
			Silvia reads entire document
			NJW reviews PK's component descriptions
			PK reviews SL's component descriptions
			SL reviews SM's component descriptions
			SM reviews CAO's component descriptions
			CAO reviews NJW's component descriptions
			Everyone reads and corrects introductory chapters

<silvia> Fine with me !
<peter> Could work, though it means taking my lunch a bit early.
> Emails with lists of minor corrections are very welcome. END
<njw> OK
<larsson> Y.
> Do what we do: eat your lunch at your desk, Peter END
<peter> Should I ask Jake (new pipeline person) to compare the ADD with his 
various pipeline ADDs? END
<peter> Usually I have a real lunch ... END
<jerome> Miam
> Any more comments on ADD work? END
<silvia> N
<Sami> N
<jerome> N
<larsson> n
<njw> N
> Next on the agenda: ISDC rotation. All yours Jerome END
<jerome> It is quite difficult for the moment to schedule anything with the 
information
<jerome> available from ISOC. So we (CAO and I) are thinking about another 
strategy
<jerome> consisting in planning regular visits at ISDC (undependently of the
<jerome> observations plan). The problem is that we, at DSRI, may not have 
enough money
<jerome> to send a representant (say during a couple of days) once a week. So 
perhaps 
<jerome> it could be every two weeks or one a month. If this is OK with Niels 
and the 
<jerome> rest of you of course, I will circulate a plan for these visits 
involving nine 
<jerome> persons, that is a travel every two months at the most.
<jerome> Anyway, there is a GPS planned between Friday and Saturday. I am 
thinking 
<jerome> about the possibility to take to ISDC on Monday and Tuesday, but I 
wonder if 
<jerome> there really is a need... Also considering the short time to find a 
plane and 
<jerome> a hotel. What do you think Peter?
<jerome> END
<peter> In my personal opinion it could be enough to come once per month if you 
staid rather for 3-4 full days.
<peter> About the next GPS - honestly I don't know. Should look up where it's 
actually pointing at.
<njw> I agree to the idea of regular visits rather than sudden travels,
> Clearly it's more efficient economically speaking to stay for 
> longer, so I'm all in favour of every 3-4 weeks for 4 days at a time.
> END
<njw> also fewer and longer visits will probably be more useful END
<peter> The importance is not so much (anymore) to be here so often, than to 
really make contact with the people here to discuss with the people. END
<peter> Sorry for the confuse 'talking'. END
> Which people exactly? ISDC people or other visitors? END
<njw> both, I'd imagine END
<jerome> Discuss about what... Analysis results or S/W problems? END
<peter> Mostly ISDC people by now, but that includes Jerome Rodriguez of the 
IBIS team who is permantly here and does a lot of work on Galactic sources. When 
other people are here then naturally also with them. END
<peter> To Jerome: both as well. Many people here look at the scan data in one 
way or the other, stumble across problems etc.
> Can I put an AI on Jerome to discuss this with NL and firm up
> the frequency and length of visits, based on the available travel
> money? END
<jerome> OK
<silvia> I agree with the idea of regular visits for a longer stay of 3-4-5 
days. Indeed I should do some regular stays at ISDC (every 2 months). Peter is 
one of my PhD advisor I am really need to have some time with him for 
discussion. Also I have found that these stays help me in a better understanding 
of the whole software. END
> CAO:tesing testing
<jerome> To Silvia: Then if we say one visitor once a month, your visits will be 
only partly
<jerome> as JEMX representant and another represntant may be there also at 
> Shall we say one visitor per month in addition to our trips to
<jerome> the same moment (?)
<jerome> END
> ISDC for consortium/SDAST meetings etc.? END
<silvia> I do not think is necessary that other representant 
<silvia> stay at the same time that me. But it is true that I will need probably 
to do more trips than the others. I should discuss this issu with Victor and 
Peter. I let you know my 
<silvia> availability
<silvia> END
<jerome> So we will have to know when you plan to be at ISDC...
<jerome> END
<silvia> Crossing ideas ! I will inform you about my plan as soon as possible 
END
<jerome> Y
> Any more comments on ISDC rotation? END
<silvia> N
<njw> N
<Sami> N
<peter> n
<larsson> n
> Okay, next point on the agenda: Contributions to the Munich workshop.
> Whose planning what, just out of curiosity? END
<peter> From my side I have:
<peter> Broadband spectra of Vela X-1 (working title)
<peter> and coauthorships on several other papers, e.g.,
<peter> SGR 1806-20, GX301-2, Monitoring of accreting pulsars ...
<peter> END
<jerome> I am writing an abstract for a poster about DSRI's Mosaic tool. END
> Stefan how about you? END
> I'm planning a poster about gain corrections (and corrections to
<larsson> A GRB paper (at least). END
> the corrections) END
<njw> I'm thinking about "Weak sources in JEMX" and contributing to
> I may not be at the workshop itself: I can just send the guys off
> with my poster and have a quiet week working on Planck END
<njw> GRS1915, XTE1720, CygX-3 END
<silvia> In my team we are planning 4 contributions (3 talks and one poster have 
been requested) :  1. INTEGRAL Observations of the Small Magellanic Cloud 2. 
SAXJ2103+45, a new peculiar BeX system seen by INTEGRAL 3.High enery spectrum of 
EXO 2030 during an outburst 4. IR observations -INTEGRAL new sources follow-up . 
> Sami, any background handling poster from you? END
<silvia> The last one is under discussion. TO Peter: Juan will contact you to be 
co-author of the last one. ANd i have to talk with Pablo 
<silvia> to include you in some of the others. END
<peter> To Silvia: Thanks!
<peter> If I remember correctly, they wanted rather non-technical contributions 
to this workshop, so things should be correlated with scientific results. END
<Sami> to CAO: I'll check what I have... END
<silvia> I forgot ! Victor has also contacted Osmi for a possible contribution 
on Cynus X-3 (that should be part of my PhD ). But we have not yet received any 
answer. END
> Any more on the workshop and its contributions? END
<silvia> N
<njw> N
<jerome> N
<larsson> N
<Sami> N
<peter> N
> Next, Status for OSA 3.0 release. Peter? END
<peter> Well, there are two conflicting drivers:
<peter> 1. People need OSA3 software soon to work on Munich contributions.
<peter> 2. Currently, there's still some problems with the ISSW especially from 
IBIS (though one reason, SPI is not making problems is because they have not 
delivered much new).
<peter> There is an OSA current build which is supposedly almost final, but we 
have not really done scientific validation.
<peter> If all goes well from now, we'll ship it end of November, I guess. END
<peter> Regarding JEM-X ISSW, Isabelle asked me to discuss all remaining 
corrections with you guys today and hopefully have the deliveries THIS FRIDAY 
THE LATEST. END
<njw> Peter and Silvia: Does sw_rep_smn still exist? I believe that I need it 
for
> Any comments on OSA 3.0? Do you know which of you still has things
<njw> testing the background subtraction. END
> to deliver? Can you get it done by Friday? END
<silvia> Peter, are you going to write an SPR on j_scripts to change the default 
values of SPE and LCR paramters or should I do it ? END
<peter> I can do it after we discussed this here. END
<silvia> The only required updates are on Stefan tools ! Stefan, how is going 
with your tools ? Are the normalization issue - next point in the agenda - well 
defined ? END
<Sami> Question of all bkg users:Is there some problems in new 
executables/models ? END
<larsson> I will redeliver j_src_lc and j_src_spectra by Friday.
<larsson> At the moment I am just waiting for a decition on the normalization 
issue.
<njw> On bkg: For my part all (technical) problems have been solved. I still 
need
<njw> to do some validation checks. END
<larsson> Implementing, testing and delivery of that is a 24 hr issue. END
<silvia> To NJW: you can use sw_rep_smn until IMA is working fine ! END
<peter> Besides Stefan's tools there is an open SPR on j_ima_basic_recon!
<njw> Hmmm, forever then ...   ?? END
<peter> The last formal delivery of that one is quite old ... END
> We'll discuss the normalisation issue in a moment Stefan. ENd
<njw> Peter: I'll see what I can do about it. END
<peter> It should be a rather simple fix. END
<njw> The asin one ?? Yes, that's simple END
<peter> Yes, that one. END
> Any more about deliveries etc.? END
<peter> Not at the moment
<silvia> N
<larsson> N
<njw> N
> Next on the agenda: Flux normalisation. Could someone start the
> ball rolling on this one? END
<larsson> Maybe I can do that.
<larsson> The question is what normalisation we should use for our computed 
fluxes.
> And the options are? END
<larsson> That is for sources in IMA, and from extracted spectra and light 
curves.
<larsson> With normalisation I mean to what area should the flux be normalised.
<larsson> Options are:
<larsson> 1. The actual detector area illuminated by the source.
<larsson> 2. The nominal area corresponding to the on-axis ARF
<larsson> 3. The geometric area of the detector.
<larsson> 4. Flux per cm square.
<larsson> Comments questions suggestions? END
<peter> Yes -indeed
<peter> (a) Running the scripts with default parameters we should have as few 
different normalizations as possible.
<peter> (b) But for fluxes from the IMA step, solution number 2 above is what is 
adopted by ISGRI and what our QLA system expects when doing flux comparison.
<peter> (c) It is very confusing for users if different parameter choices give 
them different normalizations - at least we should be very clear about this in 
the instructions. END
<peter> So how do we best sort this out? END
<njw> One point: "The nominal area corresponding to the on-axis ARF" is that
<njw> 490cm2 times 0.24 times 0.87 (geom. area, open fraction, collimator) ->
<njw> around 100 cm2 ?? END
<larsson> Yes. END
<peter> That would be my understanding. END
<njw> Then what you more or less implicitly suggest, Peter, is that IMA changes
<njw> from 1. to 2. END
<njw> In that case my proposal from the email three or four days ago on how
<peter> I guess, yes. In a sense that means calculating 4. and multiplying with 
a fixed constant. END
<njw> to keep track of how much area is included becomes relevant. Any comments 
? END
<peter> I like the proposal. END
<silvia> May be I am telling something stupid ! With option 2 the fluxes will be 
not corrected of vigneting, do they ? And sometime ago we said that vigneting 
corrected fluxes are required. END
<njw> Yes, they will be vignetting corrected END
<silvia> Tak NJW ! END
> When would this need to be done by? END
<njw> And with the "used-detector-area-map" the vignetting can be more 
accurately
<njw> calculated.
<larsson> "used-detector-area-map" is precisely what I have implemented in the 
new
* njw To CAO: not by Friday. Probably in three weeks. END
<larsson> versions of LCR and SPE extraction. END
<njw> Stefan: Then I can get the format that you use to see if it makes sense to
<peter> That sounds too late for OSA3 - though I still would like to see it be 
there rather sooner than later. END
<njw> reuse it. Could make life simpler END
<peter> To keep the schedule, shall we say that _for_the_moment_ IMA fluxes stay 
as they are (update in preparation), but we agree on one of the schemes to be 
default for SPE and LCR? END
<larsson> NJ: I will send you the software with comments to let you judge if you 
can
<larsson> use something of that. END
<njw> Thanks, Stefan END
> If that's all settled, any more comments on normalisation? Jerome
> will you need to change your ADD piece about flux units at all? END
<jerome> Peter, do you mean that the fluxes will, at least temparary, not have 
the same uints in the different
<jerome> places?
<jerome>  To CAO: I guess so...
<jerome> END
<silvia> Stefan please send an email to PK and myself with the default parameter 
values for the scripts. END
<peter> Flux units - the question goes to all of you: what would you like for 
spectra/lightcurves?
<njw> Please cc to me, Stefan END
<larsson> I will. END
<larsson> (incl. cc NJ) END
<njw> Wouldn't it make sense to use cts/s/102.3cm2  ? END
<njw> For direct comparison with JMXi-SRCL-RES END
<jerome> Counts/s/cm2 is fine for me... As long as we know what we get and that 
is constant and common everywhere.
<jerome> END
<peter> To Jerome: at the moment we can't have it for IMA, the question is if we 
use it for SPE/LCR or do as NJW proposes and use the same normalization 
everywhere. END
<peter> That area is in jemx.h? END
<jerome> Yes I understand that, but will IMA also use the same in the future?
<jerome> END
<jerome> ...I mean the same as SPE/LCR END
> I'm not aware of any areas being defined in jemx.h - in the 
> individual component headers maybe? Send me a value if you want
> it included in jemx.h. END
<njw> I think that it is important to be consistent in IMA/SPE/LCR so we must
<njw> agree on /cm2 or /102.3cm2 END
<peter> Stefan, what do you think? END
<larsson> I agree with NJ, we should be consistent.
<peter> So do you see a problem in changing to cts/s/102.3cm2?
<larsson> I dont mind if it is /cm2 or /102.3cm2 but since you say that
<larsson> IMA result should be compared with results more similar to
<njw> Question: Does the ISGRI choice have an influence on our decision here ? 
END
<larsson> the 100cm-sq I guess we should go for that. END
<peter> Yes, but only a minor. In the short term, I'm rather worried about QLA. 
END
<peter> When th expected fluxes are calculated I think (Ken is not here right 
now) that he assumes rather flux/100cm^2. END
<njw> I'll vote for /100cm2 - other votes ? END
> I'm a non-combatant in this one - what ever you agree on is fine
> with me. eND
<jerome> For me /cm2 sounds more genarl, and then everyone can decide to use 100 
cm2 or 102.3 cm2
<jerome> END
<silvia> I'm a quite lost ! My vote is not worthy ! END
<silvia> I agree with Jerome that /100cm2 is more general END
<jerome> Sorry, but I meant /cm2... Not /100cm2 END
> Could we please decide between Peter, Stefan, NJW and Jerome. Votes
> gentlemen please! END
<peter> I'd slightly prefer cts/102.3cm^2 which I'd express as counts/idealized 
detector for users. END
<njw> Let cut through and make that the final decision! END
<jerome> But with /cm2 you let the user to decide what he/she wants to use END
<njw> I see your point, Jerome, but that is also possible with the other option 
END
<jerome> Of course, but you introduce a number which maybe, is not a constant 
(?)
<jerome> END
<njw> The idea is to make that number a constant - also introduce it in jemx.h 
END
<jerome> Is JEMX constant???
<jerome> END
<peter> I think we have a 2:1 majority for cts/s/(ideal area) END
<jerome> OK
<peter> The _ideal_ area is constant. END
> Okay, that's decided. Please send me the value for inclusion in 
> jemx.h, so that we all know what the area is we're dividing by
> along with the name of the constant you'd like to use. That's
> an AI on Peter to send me the correct value. Jerome will need to
> update his ADD piece.
> Any more comments?
<njw> N
<silvia> N
<peter> N
<jerome> Yes: Let's say good bye... There is cake club now!
<larsson> N
> Could we just confirm the dates for the Valencia meeting, so
> that we can get on with plane tickets and so on. I've got
<silvia> I agree with Jerome ! I have not yet taken lunch .... !!! Ok, fine 
Carol Anne !
<larsson> Our is in 15 minutes..... and I also want to plan for Valencia. AND
<silvia> In Helsinki meeting we said 24th and 25th of November, are those dates 
fine with everyone ? END
> 24-25 November. Is the
> that okay with everyone? END
<peter> Same for me, should be OK. 
<larsson> The dates are fine. What start and end? END
<njw> OK
> Presumably we all arrive the day before, so we start 9.00 Monday
> and finish early Tuesday (3pm?) so that we've got time to travel
> home again. comments? END
* jerome The same 
<jerome> !
<njw> CAO - same procedure as last time END
<silvia> I will prefer to start one hour later at 10:00 and finish a bit late on 
Monday 
<peter> ok
<silvia> Otherwise, I have to be in Valencia on Sunday afternoon, and I do not 
like so too much ! END
> Fine, but the general dates are agreed? END
<njw> Y
<silvia> Take into account that restaurant for dinner in Valencia are not opened 
before 9:00 p.m. The general dates are perfect ! END
> Okay, Jerome's getting restive - let's call it a day. There'll be
<silvia> Then see you all in Valencia in a month ! END
> a chat next week too, to cover the AI list (long neglected) and the
> first impressions of the new ADD. Comments? END
<silvia> TO NJW. Could you please tell me from where I can take the funtools ? 
END
<jerome> Thanks everybody. Have a nice afternoon.
<jerome> END
<njw> For Sun Solaris you mean ? END
<silvia> Not for Linux ? I need the source code ! END
<njw> OK, I'll see what I can do, I'll email to you later END
<silvia> Tusenk tak NJW ! Hej, hej ! END
<silvia> bye everyone ! END
*** jerome has left channel #jemxadr : (Bye)
<njw> hej, tak for nu, bye END
*** njw has left channel #jemxadr : (njw)
*** Signoff: silvia ( )
> Goodbye everyone - thanks for a productive, and long chat! END
<peter> Bye
*** Signoff: peter (Leaving)
<larsson> bye
*** Signoff: larsson ()
