From schou@mps.mpg.de Thu Dec 21 20:27:15 2017 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 05:17:18 +0100 From: Jesper Schou To: Tim Larson Subject: Fwd: Re: SOLA1201 So here is the mail from John with his latest revision. My notes to him are also attached. Jesper -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: SOLA1201 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:27:42 -0700 From: John Leibacher To: schou@mps.mpg.de On 12/20/2017 9:36 PM, Jesper Schou wrote: > Hi, > > So, here is a quick reply written on a plane. Details on the proofs > still TBD. > > Jesper > > PS. Greeting from Christchurch! Hi, OK, so let's take care of the "AUTHOR", etc. markings: l140: >> "Dynamic Run" versus "dynamics run". Scherrer et al. (1995) used >> "Dynamics Programs", so it sounds like upper casing may be way to go. >> But I will leave it up to you. > > I believe that I was consistent; it's a proper noun. Very good. Let's use upper case. l159:>> The 12 day series is included since it was used by someone else >> (Rhodes) and this gives something to cite. > > OK..., just wanted to check; as this article is about mode fitting and > there were none, it's not obvious The paragraph does say that they are time series used by others. Leave as is or should I come up with some words. l172:>> Use of "native". I don't think that is new, so why mess with it now? >> It indicates the one belonging to the time series > > Its meaning may not be obvious to a reader. >> itself, as opposed to a common one with some other series, say. > > Glad I asked.  Without caffeine that sure isn't obvious...  I really > doubt that it will be clear to a non-native speaker.   What about > "individual"? Hmmm. Native sounds good to me. But I could go with "original" or we can add a sentence. Original is probably more clear, thanks. Notice that it is also used on p. 16. >> l165. Do you actually want me to do anything? You can't make Medium-l, >> if you don't have data to a large enough radius. > > It reads as though data were missing from all years except 96 and 98, or > the kernels were wider for the other years, or ... Perhaps: "...because for the other years, the full disk crop radius was smaller and the Gaussian convolution kernel used for the smoothing reached beyond the full-disk crop radius..." Or at least that is my recollection. So yes, effectively data are missing for the other years. Thanks. l223: I think that this means as opposed to cropped or vw reconstructed. Perhaps simply "regular"? OK, thanks >> >> l228. The only inclination mentioned in the previous paragraph is that >> of the solar rotation axis (Carrington was not > > "tilt" was mentioned > >> quite right). Does that need to be spelled out again? Well, inclination was only mentioned once, but if it is so confusing we could repeat it: "Hence, the only geometrical correction applied here was for the error in the inclination of the Sun’s rotation axis mentioned in the previous paragraph." OK, thanks >> >> l231. Strictly yes, the leakage matrix should be changed. But when you >> are far below the pixel Nyquist the change is really small. And that >> from a different PSF is probably larger anyway. By far the dominant >> thing you need to worry about is the apodization and for Medium-l the >> smoothing etc. > > As you wish; you say what you did So, let's leave it. OK, thanks l239: I think that native is quite standard here.  But if you think that it is too confusing, then "original" might work OK, thanks >> >> l391. What do you want here? I don't see a ? there. > > It's not obvious, and it's worth talking about/educating me at some point. Surely the frequencies should be independent of observing method? Amplitudes and background depend on how things are observed.> >> >> l451. There is an "AUTHOR??", but what is it pointing to? > > "an average over all Dynamics Runs".  I (naively) assumed that it was > the a_1 residuals for all DRs, and wondered what was being averaged. The a1 values are averaged over all runs, inverted and the residuals are shown. Text sounds OK to me. OK, it's your article, but I think that it is even less clear now with "inverted".   If it were "from" instead of "for", but the deviation at 3.3 is not clear from just the caption. >> >> l739. Marked green. What does that indicate? Same as the previous question > > Sane confusion:  What is the average? Same as above. >> >> l1090. Drift of the tuning? Or of the tuning elements? > > Add "of optical components"?  It's not pointing, or s/c position, or ... "The occasional changes in the instrument tuning to compensate for drifts of the wavelength tuning elements are also likely to play a part." Thanks. >> >> l1133. These are the leaks themselves. As in the elements of the >> leakage matrix. > > It's still not clear (to me).  The ordinate reads "Sensitivity". The leakage matrix contains the sensitivity of each measurement (SHT term) to each inherent mode. OK, thanks. >> >> But do tell me how I should go about dealing with your questions to >> the author. > > Let me know about any outstanding ones, and I'll tweak my redlines. > > Once we remove all of the AUTHORs, I'll send this to VTex, and you can > send anything else or indicate to them that you have nothing else.   OK? So, the above should have taken care of most. Yes, I think that we are in good enough shape for the questions that I had.   I can go ahead and submit this (attached), BUT you really need to read through the whole article carefully.  It's the last chance. Best wishes for the run. John L Jesper >> >> Jesper >> >> >> >> On 12/17/17 1:58 AM, John Leibacher wrote: >>> Here are my edits (with some questions to you indicated by AUTHOR) >>> and the revised README.txt >>> >>> J >>> > [ Part 2, Application/PDF (Name: "SOLA1201_JL_R2.pdf") 6.1 MB. ] [ Unable to print this part. ] [ Part 3, Text/PLAIN (Name: "jl.txt") ~4.7 KB. ] [ Unable to print this part. ]