https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 8.3.4 803005 13-09-2019 https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/PIPE2D-489 DRP 2-D Pipeline <p>There were discussions during the PFS meting about focus issues and how to optimize the instrument. There was discussions about the difference between ensquared energy requirement and how does it correlate with wavefront parameters that I am determined from the donut analysis.  My understanding is that Jim wants to see the RMS wavefront error image across the detector and compare that with ensquared energy measured. I will verify this with Jim and than update this ticket. </p> PIPE2D-489

Characterize the RMS wavefront across the detector

Task Normal Done Done ncaplar ncaplar Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:52:27 +0000 Mon, 13 Jan 2020 23:13:57 +0000 Sat, 4 Jan 2020 00:11:36 +0000 0 1 <p>Verified that this is indeed what Jim wanted to see. Produced the figure wavefront_characterization, which shows the evolution of the wavefront RMS, max value of wavefront - min value of wavefront and median value of wavefront. Jim was also interested in seeing a figure showing how wavefront changes across detector. </p> <p>Added figure showing how wavefront changes across the detector. The wavefront positions correspond to positions in Figure wavefront_characterization. The limits on the color intensity is +- 3 waves.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>I am working on add these few spots which are missing. I do not think this is a systemic issue, I think it is just my error that those were not included. At the moment stuck in the queue on the cluster. </p> <p>I have updated the figures, with 88 spots out of 90 available now. RHL asked to create the same plot without detector shadow - this is what I am working on now, it shouldn't be very hard.</p> <p>Added the ``full'' image.</p> <p>I added an image which shows the comparison of spots from the real data and the simulations (see also <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/PIPE2D-443" title="Deduce if the difference between the simulated and observed data is indicative of a problem" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="PIPE2D-443"><del>PIPE2D-443</del></a>). From this figure you see that real data, taken in the corners of the detector, has larger aberrations than the simulated data. This is consistent with the statement made by Jim, who did not expect such large wavefront aberrations in the corners of the detector.  I will compose an email to send to LAM to hear their opinion tomorrow (Friday - Jan 3).</p> <p>Jim asked if we could see how do simulated aberrations looks when going out of focus. Analysis of these images and comparison to the real data is the next step (probably a new ticket).</p> <p>I have added the images that show how individual Zernike components look at: <a href="https://sumire.pbworks.com/w/file/137918349/Individual_Zernike.zip" class="external-link" rel="nofollow">https://sumire.pbworks.com/w/file/137918349/Individual_Zernike.zip</a></p> <p> </p> <p>I have added:</p> <p>1. Wavefront images for which I have set z4, z11 and z22 at 0, i.e., all of the Zernike components which have only radial dependence are set at zero. This was requested by Kjetil in order to make it easier to see aberration components. </p> <p>2. I have also added all of the images describing the wavefront made in Zemax, based on work done in <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/PIPE2D-421" title="Compare result of the fits to the real data with the outputs from Zemax" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="PIPE2D-421"><del>PIPE2D-421</del></a>. As mentioned there  is always confusion in Zemax what is up-down, left-right. I do think that I am doing it correctly, but you should keep it as a caveat. </p> <p> </p> Development Rank 0|zzs0aw: Story Points 8.0