Project

General

Profile

Photometric stability » History » Version 9

Gary Bernstein, 09/08/2013 02:47 PM

1 1 Gary Bernstein
h1. Photometric stability
2 1 Gary Bernstein
3 1 Gary Bernstein
Here is a comparison of the relative response of the array to stars across the FOV during the three star flat trials: Nov 20 & 21 2012, Dec 12 2012, Feb 22 2013.
4 1 Gary Bernstein
5 1 Gary Bernstein
h2. Definitions
6 1 Gary Bernstein
7 1 Gary Bernstein
* All plots are showing the ratio of response in one epoch to response in another.  Units are magnitudes.  All of the plots below have color scale spanning +-3 mmag.  All plots have had the best-fit constants and linear slopes across the field of view removed, as these can be produced by changes in atmospheric extinction.
8 1 Gary Bernstein
* The *dome flat* is the response to the dome lamps.  These come from the DESDM supercal runs done for SVA1.  All CCDs are given a _common normalization_ factor, i.e. I undo the individual CCD-to-CCD normalizations done in DESDM using the _SCALMEAN_ values in the superflat headers.
9 1 Gary Bernstein
* The *star flat* is adjustment that must be made to stars to get correct magnitudes after applying dome flats to the images.  It is essentially the fraction of the dome illumination that is caused by scattered light instead of focused light.
10 1 Gary Bernstein
* The *stellar response* is the product of star flat and dome flat: it measures the response of the array to focused light from celestial objects.
11 4 Gary Bernstein
* The plots below use MAG_AUTO to derive the star flat.  Results from using fixed 8" diameter aperture are insignificantly different.
12 1 Gary Bernstein
13 1 Gary Bernstein
h2. Summary
14 1 Gary Bernstein
15 1 Gary Bernstein
* *The stellar response is more stable than the dome flats!*  In other words, using a different dome flat each night or week is actually degrading the photometric stability because the domes are changing for reasons (maybe light in the dome, etc.) that do not actually change the camera's sensitivity to stars.
16 1 Gary Bernstein
* The stellar response changes by *<1 mmag RMS in riz and ~1.5 mmag RMS in gY between epochs*.  The biggest changes are about +-3 mmag peak-to-peak.  [There are larger changes on the flaky amplifier of CCD #31].
17 3 Gary Bernstein
* The dome flats had a change in mid-Feb of about +-10 mmag. and have  about +-3 mmag changes on other epochs.   _I suspect that close examination would find that there are single nights that have discrepant dome flats at ~1% level due to some change in procedure.  Worth further investigation!_
18 1 Gary Bernstein
19 1 Gary Bernstein
h2. Dome flat variations
20 1 Gary Bernstein
21 1 Gary Bernstein
Here are the changes in dome flats between 5 different epochs of superflats produced by DESDM for SVA1.  These plots show the differences between adjacent pairs of these flats (note I have not looked at all the epochs produced by DESDM):
22 1 Gary Bernstein
23 1 Gary Bernstein
* 20130716165341_20121117t1124
24 1 Gary Bernstein
* 20130718144123_20130113t0131
25 1 Gary Bernstein
* 20130712170315_20121209t1226
26 1 Gary Bernstein
* 20130719192814_20130201t0212
27 1 Gary Bernstein
* 20130725170742_20130217t0227
28 1 Gary Bernstein
29 2 Gary Bernstein
What you can see below is that 
30 2 Gary Bernstein
31 2 Gary Bernstein
* in _griz_, the 1st, 2nd, and 4th epochs are very similar - ~0.5 mmag RMS change between them.  But there is a common pattern that appears in the 3rd of these epochs (and then disappears) at +-3 mmag peak to peak.  Then in the last epoch there are +- 10 mmag patterns that show up.
32 2 Gary Bernstein
* in _Y_ band there are stronger changes from epoch to epoch after the first two.  Not sure what these are, but it's a different pattern and mechanism from the changes seen in _griz_.  Maybe temperature changes in the devices have an effect here?
33 2 Gary Bernstein
34 2 Gary Bernstein
35 1 Gary Bernstein
!domediff1.png!
36 1 Gary Bernstein
!domediff2.png!
37 1 Gary Bernstein
!domediff3.png!
38 1 Gary Bernstein
!domediff4.png!
39 2 Gary Bernstein
40 2 Gary Bernstein
h2. Star/sky response variations
41 2 Gary Bernstein
42 2 Gary Bernstein
This first plot shows the change between the Nov and Dec star flats.  The dome flats had negligible change between these two (first plot above) so this is also the change in response to the sky.  The RMS variation is <1.5 mmag, except in g band where I believe the bad amplifier on CCD #31 is inflating the statistics.  There are some coherent patterns to these changes but they are small.
43 2 Gary Bernstein
44 2 Gary Bernstein
!NovMinusDecStar.png!
45 2 Gary Bernstein
46 2 Gary Bernstein
Next are two plots: the first is the change in the *star flat* between Dec and Jan, and we see larger changes than the above case.  But in fact the dome flats used in Feb are different from those in Dec.  The second plot shows that when we multiply star flats times dome flat to get real stellar response, the camera is in fact quite stable between the two epochs, again with changes of <1 mmag in _riz_ and somewhat larger in _gY_.
47 2 Gary Bernstein
48 2 Gary Bernstein
!DecMinusJanStar.png! !DecMinusJanSD.png!
49 6 Gary Bernstein
50 6 Gary Bernstein
h2. A movie of Y band dome changes
51 6 Gary Bernstein
52 7 Gary Bernstein
The movie file "attached below":https://cdcvs.fnal.gov/redmine/attachments/download/11922/SV%20Y%20Dome%20Flats.m4v shows the Y band dome flats of many mornings/evenings relative to a template for each "epoch".  There are 4 epochs, between each is a temperature excursion of the focal plane that changes the chip-to-chip normalizations of the domes by up to 1%.  This movie shows that changes *aside* from these temperature-induced shifts is small - generally < 1mmag RMS - but there are significant patterns and changes.
53 8 Gary Bernstein
54 8 Gary Bernstein
*Addendum 8 Sep 2013 (Gary B.):*
55 8 Gary Bernstein
There was a 5K focal plane temperature excursion on the evening of Sep 6 (after that evening's flats).  Below is a graph of shifts in the means of each CCD in the Y band flat fields (means provided by Ricardo Covarrubias).  Vs CCD number, I plot the ratio of Sep 7 to Sep 5 flats as the filled symbols.  The ratio of mean flats is normalized to the ratio for CCD #29, to take out any illumination-level shifts.  Changes up to +-0.002 are seen, and are common to A and B amps of each CCD.
56 8 Gary Bernstein
57 8 Gary Bernstein
The x symbols show similar ratio for Sep 3 / Sep 5, as a control, since temperatures were constant in this interval.  Changes are 4x lower, +-0.0005 or less.
58 8 Gary Bernstein
59 8 Gary Bernstein
Conclude that *5 K temperature excursions might cause 2 mmag shifts in some CCDs dome levels.  If past experience is a guide, sky response will have changed by less.*
60 9 Gary Bernstein
A 0.5 K glitch on 18 Jan 2013 did not cause detectable changes in Y domes.  Also there is no evidence of changes in Y domes when the monsoon elex are power-cycled, as long as there is no temperature glitch.
61 9 Gary Bernstein
62 9 Gary Bernstein
!Y flat changes 7 Sep 2013.png!