flux percentage graphs

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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Successfully graphed both test targets and graphed the PCA waterband depth plot

Image
I have successfully moved forward with several things on my to do list. First off I have successfully graphed both test targets after reducing them. I extracted them with an extraction width of 7. We can change this to match the Apai paper. I did this by copying one of the regular star location images, since the code wanted at least 2 star location images. The code then ran perfectly fine after reduction on all the test target data. I have also taken Dylan's PCA code, modified it somewhat, and have used it successfully to graph a waterband depth plot for the 2 test targets and the 2 targets I'm working on. I just used an array of 1's to calculate the error since I have not learned how to calculate the error for a pca plot. The test data does not perfectly match our data, but that is most likely because the parameters used to extract the data using aXe are not exactly the same, as well as the systematic errors are not accounted for in the test data. However the variation
Read more