Annotation of /ccfdev/packages/emos-quantumef/ChangeLog

ChangeLog for emos-quantumeff
============================
VERSION 0.6 - 2000-09-6 (DL)
-----------
        Further analysis of fligh tdata at Licester allowed better 
        reconciliation with the analytical QE models. In addition we 
        introduce far more energy data to allow for better interpolation. There
        are still problems around the O edge and below 300eV, so we need to
        understand modifications in RMF to make progress at this point.
        
VERSION 0.5 - 2000-06-23 (DL)
-----------
        The initial flight calibration revealed discrepancies at the O edge
        and the lowest energy reponses. These were attributed mainly to 
        systematic  errors in the monitoring process at the Orsay synchrotron.
        New empirical fits to the data were provided by Leicester, and these 
        have been compared with new SCISIM runs, utilising the best latest 
        electrode structure used in the Leicester analystical QE model fit. A 
        combination of LUX data, and an extension BELOW the Si L edge for the 
        SCISIM data allows a hopefully better fit. In addition I have modified
        the QE's for the outer CCDs of each camera, where there are systematic
        differences in QE at > 5keV. These can be attributed to ddifferences
        in silicon resistivity translating to different depletion depths. The 
        QE data for this at Orsay is equivocal, so I take average trends in
        increased efficiency between 5 and 12keV and allocate a best estimate 
        of increased depletion depth to this, and in return modify the overall
        QE curves as a result. I am suspicious, though that all QE's are 
        GREATER tahn the central CCD, and this may indicate a systematic bias
        in the measurment method at Orsay.

        The new data sets should give good results to about 10% accuracy at 
        worst case small energy scales (eg EXAFS scales at silicon edges etc.)
        
VERSION 0.4 - 2000-05-23 (DL)
-----------
        FIxed error of missing pattern 1 data for CCD5
VERSION 0.3 - 2000-02-23 (DL)
-----------
        FIxed numerical problem in the data files (some values >>1 )
        
Version 0.2 - 2000-02-17 (UL)
-----------
        + fixed minor problem with REGION expression in data files

Version 0.1 - 2000-02-09 (DL)
-----------
        + created by DL
1	dlumb	1.6	ChangeLog for emos-quantumeff
2			============================
3			VERSION 0.6 - 2000-09-6 (DL)
4			-----------
5			Further analysis of fligh tdata at Licester allowed better
6			reconciliation with the analytical QE models. In addition we
7			introduce far more energy data to allow for better interpolation. There
8			are still problems around the O edge and below 300eV, so we need to
9			understand modifications in RMF to make progress at this point.
10
11	dlumb	1.5	VERSION 0.5 - 2000-06-23 (DL)
12			-----------
13			The initial flight calibration revealed discrepancies at the O edge
14			and the lowest energy reponses. These were attributed mainly to
15			systematic errors in the monitoring process at the Orsay synchrotron.
16			New empirical fits to the data were provided by Leicester, and these
17			have been compared with new SCISIM runs, utilising the best latest
18			electrode structure used in the Leicester analystical QE model fit. A
19			combination of LUX data, and an extension BELOW the Si L edge for the
20			SCISIM data allows a hopefully better fit. In addition I have modified
21			the QE's for the outer CCDs of each camera, where there are systematic
22			differences in QE at > 5keV. These can be attributed to ddifferences
23			in silicon resistivity translating to different depletion depths. The
24			QE data for this at Orsay is equivocal, so I take average trends in
25			increased efficiency between 5 and 12keV and allocate a best estimate
26			of increased depletion depth to this, and in return modify the overall
27			QE curves as a result. I am suspicious, though that all QE's are
28			GREATER tahn the central CCD, and this may indicate a systematic bias
29			in the measurment method at Orsay.
30
31			The new data sets should give good results to about 10% accuracy at
32			worst case small energy scales (eg EXAFS scales at silicon edges etc.)
33
34	dlumb	1.4	VERSION 0.4 - 2000-05-23 (DL)
35			-----------
36			FIxed error of missing pattern 1 data for CCD5
37	dlumb	1.3	VERSION 0.3 - 2000-02-23 (DL)
38			-----------
39			FIxed numerical problem in the data files (some values >>1 )
40
41	ulammers	1.2	Version 0.2 - 2000-02-17 (UL)
42			-----------
43			+ fixed minor problem with REGION expression in data files
44	ulammers	1.1
45	ulammers	1.2	Version 0.1 - 2000-02-09 (DL)
46	ulammers	1.1	-----------
47			+ created by DL