Current Graphs

SDSS-J075840.33+324723.4


2MASS-J16291840+0335371 (first set of exposures)


2MASS-J16291840+0335371 (second set of exposures)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

flux percentage graphs

Image
Today I've been working on several different items. First I have figured out why the flux percentage was failing. I was summing the edges of the data and that for whatever reason was causing the whole flux to drop significantly. By only summing the flux from 10600 to 17000 I found that it greatly stabilized the result and I got exactly what I was expected to get. I added to the upper left when less than a percent changes. It is pictured below. Interestingly enough, I found that the extraction width is fairly close to the optimal noise for the waterband. This can show that using the noise in the waterband as a guide to choosing an extraction width agrees with using the amount of total flux captured.
Read more

working on the waterband graphs

Image
Today I found something interesting playing around with the test data. I found that when graphing just the raw data, I got a very noisy looking graph with only a sort of dip in the waterband. I thought this was strange, especially since in the paper they have a very clear dip in the waterband. Through some experimenting I found that using a rolling mean to smooth out the data, I produced nearly the exact same graph as was produced in the paper, with the same type of features in the waterband. I then did this same thing on the data that we have and produced a much cleaner and clear signal than what we had before. I included the test data and the data we are currently working with as well. The smoothing I think brings out a better waterband feature for both test targets that we have been working with. SIMP0136 2MASS-J16291840 SDSS-J075
Read more

waterband depth and graphing variables seperatly

Image
Today I worked on producing a waterband depth graph, which turned out to be more complex than I first thought, especially when propagating the error through to the end. I have left an example of one of the waterband depth plots at the bottom of this post. I've also been working on graphing the variables separately for the curve_fit function, which I did successfully. Interestingly enough, each sin cosine pair came out smooth. However, when fit for the function as a whole, the graph comes out bumpy. I also asked the internet about any ideas of what it could be, and I got the answer that it was an expected behavior of the curve_fit function. I've also included pictures below.
Read more