next up previous contents pdf.png
Next: Bibliography Up: User's Guide for the Previous: A. Excerpt from ASCA


B. Excerpt from ACIS Grading Scheme Recommendation

The following was taken from a document titled ACIS Grading Scheme Recommendation written by Kenny Glotfelty at the AXAF Science Center, found at
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/acis/xrcf/grade.html.

Pulse Height

The way the pulse height is computed for ACIS and ASCA are different. The difference comes in the way corner pixels are included in the sum and are explained below. The effect of this difference on the different grades are also discussed. Since the flight software is already written, it would be difficult to adopt a different processing algorithm. This section is provided to show what impact using the ASCA grading scheme would have on subassembly & XRCF data analysis.

--ACIS

The flight software design ( see ACIS Software Requirements Specifications, section 3.2.2.3.14 ) computes the pulse height from the bias and overclock corrected pixels by including the center pixel's pulse height and the pulse height of all edge (non-diagonal) pixel's that are above some threshold (event for center pixel or split for surrounding pixels). Corner pixels are only included in the total event pulse height if they are above the split threshold and at least one of the adjacent edge pixels is also above the split threshold. The entire event island is telemetered in all but the Graded modes; thus allowing reprocessing on the ground.

--ASCA

The pulse height computation for ACIS and ASCA differs only in the treatment of corner pixels. Corner pixels are only included in ASCA grade 6 where both adjacent edge pixels are above threshold (and possibly a "de-touched" corner). In all other geometries, the corner pixels are not included.

        	   ACIS                        ASCA
        
                   - - o                - - o
                   - X - G128           - X - G1
                   - - -                - - -


                   X X X                o X o
                   X X X G255           X X X G7
                   X X X                o X o


                   - X X                - X X
                   - X X G208           - X X G6
                   - - -                - - -

                   - X X                - X o
                   - X - G192           - X - G5
                   - - -                - - -


        X = pixel's pulse height included in total pulse height
        o = pixel's pulse height not included in total pulse height

The following is a table showing which ACIS flight grades correspond to which ASCA grades and whether the pulse heights are computed using both systems is the same.

        ASCA           ACIS                        Comment
        -----          ----------                ----------
        0              0                        Same pulse height
        
        1              1,4,5,32,33,36,37,128    Same pulse height
                       129,132,133,160,161,
                       164,165

        2              2,34,64,65,68,69,        Same pulse height
                       130,162

        3*             8,12,136,140             Same pulse height

        4*             16,17,48,49              Same pulse height

        5              3,6,9,13,20,21,35,38,
                       40,44,52,53,96,97,100,
                       101,131,134,137,141,     All different pulse heights
                       144,145,163,166,
                       168,172,176,177,192,
                       193,196,197

        6              10,11,18,22,50,54,72,
                       76,80,81,104,108,138,    Same pulse height
                       139,208,209

        7              everything else          Mostly different pulse heights
* Due to ASCA grades being defined in READ coordinates and ACIS grades in CHIP coordinates, these two grades will interchange for output nodes B and D.


next up previous contents pdf.png
Next: Bibliography Up: User's Guide for the Previous: A. Excerpt from ASCA
Patrick Broos
Penn State Department of Astronomy
2011-04-19