YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • AMS
    • Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • AMS
    • Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Performance Assessment of the Optical Transient Detector and Lightning Imaging Sensor. Part I: Predicted Diurnal Variability

    Source: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology:;2002:;volume( 019 ):;issue: 009::page 1318
    Author:
    Boccippio, Dennis J.
    ,
    Koshak, William J.
    ,
    Blakeslee, Richard J.
    DOI: 10.1175/1520-0426(2002)019<1318:PAOTOT>2.0.CO;2
    Publisher: American Meteorological Society
    Abstract: Laboratory calibration and observed background radiance data are used to determine the effective sensitivities of the Optical Transient Detector (OTD) and Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS), as functions of local hour and pixel location within the instrument arrays. The effective LIS thresholds, expressed as radiances emitted normal to cloud top, are 4.0 ± 0.7 and 7.6 ± 3.3 ?J sr?1 m?2 for night and local noon; the OTD thresholds are 11.7 ± 2.2 and 16.8 ± 4.6 ?J sr?1 m?2. LIS and OTD minimum signal-to-noise ratios occur from 0800 to 1600 local time, and attain values of 10 ± 2 and 20 ± 3, respectively. False alarm rate due to instrument noise yields ?5 false triggers per month for LIS, and is negligible for OTD. Flash detection efficiency, based on prior optical pulse sensor measurements, is predicted to be 93 ± 4% and 73 ± 11% for LIS night and noon; 56 ± 7% and 44 ± 9% for OTD night and noon, corresponding to a 12%?20% diurnal variability and LIS:OTD ratio of 1.7. Use of the weighted daily mean detection efficiency (i.e., not controlling for local hour) corresponds to σ = 8%?9% uncertainty. These are likely overestimates of actual flash detection efficiency due to differences in pixel ground field of view across the instrument arrays that are not accounted for in the validation optical pulse sensor data.
    • Download: (1.091Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Performance Assessment of the Optical Transient Detector and Lightning Imaging Sensor. Part I: Predicted Diurnal Variability

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4156646
    Collections
    • Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology

    Show full item record

    contributor authorBoccippio, Dennis J.
    contributor authorKoshak, William J.
    contributor authorBlakeslee, Richard J.
    date accessioned2017-06-09T14:29:59Z
    date available2017-06-09T14:29:59Z
    date copyright2002/09/01
    date issued2002
    identifier issn0739-0572
    identifier otherams-2042.pdf
    identifier urihttp://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4156646
    description abstractLaboratory calibration and observed background radiance data are used to determine the effective sensitivities of the Optical Transient Detector (OTD) and Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS), as functions of local hour and pixel location within the instrument arrays. The effective LIS thresholds, expressed as radiances emitted normal to cloud top, are 4.0 ± 0.7 and 7.6 ± 3.3 ?J sr?1 m?2 for night and local noon; the OTD thresholds are 11.7 ± 2.2 and 16.8 ± 4.6 ?J sr?1 m?2. LIS and OTD minimum signal-to-noise ratios occur from 0800 to 1600 local time, and attain values of 10 ± 2 and 20 ± 3, respectively. False alarm rate due to instrument noise yields ?5 false triggers per month for LIS, and is negligible for OTD. Flash detection efficiency, based on prior optical pulse sensor measurements, is predicted to be 93 ± 4% and 73 ± 11% for LIS night and noon; 56 ± 7% and 44 ± 9% for OTD night and noon, corresponding to a 12%?20% diurnal variability and LIS:OTD ratio of 1.7. Use of the weighted daily mean detection efficiency (i.e., not controlling for local hour) corresponds to σ = 8%?9% uncertainty. These are likely overestimates of actual flash detection efficiency due to differences in pixel ground field of view across the instrument arrays that are not accounted for in the validation optical pulse sensor data.
    publisherAmerican Meteorological Society
    titlePerformance Assessment of the Optical Transient Detector and Lightning Imaging Sensor. Part I: Predicted Diurnal Variability
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume19
    journal issue9
    journal titleJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
    identifier doi10.1175/1520-0426(2002)019<1318:PAOTOT>2.0.CO;2
    journal fristpage1318
    journal lastpage1332
    treeJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology:;2002:;volume( 019 ):;issue: 009
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian