Comments on: [ArXiv] 1st week, May 2008 http://hea-www.harvard.edu/AstroStat/slog/2008/arxiv-1st-week-may-2008/ Weaving together Astronomy+Statistics+Computer Science+Engineering+Intrumentation, far beyond the growing borders Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:47:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4 By: vlk http://hea-www.harvard.edu/AstroStat/slog/2008/arxiv-1st-week-may-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-220 vlk Mon, 12 May 2008 18:14:52 +0000 http://hea-www.harvard.edu/AstroStat/slog/?p=298#comment-220 Stanislavsky et al (astro-ph:0805.0968) show a very strange result. If I understand the notation correctly, they say that the slope of the cumulative power-law steepens above the critical value (alpha=1 in their notation) during times of high activity. This is odd, because innumerable measurements have shown the index to be 0.8 (or 1.8 in differential form) over 6 orders of magnitude in flare energy deposition, and furthermore, any hints of steepening are at the low-energy end, which would presumably come to the fore during periods of low activity. One possible reason for the discrepancy (as Kelly and Steve pointed out) is that they do not account for background in the GOES data. So weaker flares get a larger systematic bump in their estimated energies compared to stronger flares, which would naturally show up as a steepening of the distribution as the background increases during times of high activity. Stanislavsky et al (astro-ph:0805.0968) show a very strange result. If I understand the notation correctly, they say that the slope of the cumulative power-law steepens above the critical value (alpha=1 in their notation) during times of high activity. This is odd, because innumerable measurements have shown the index to be 0.8 (or 1.8 in differential form) over 6 orders of magnitude in flare energy deposition, and furthermore, any hints of steepening are at the low-energy end, which would presumably come to the fore during periods of low activity. One possible reason for the discrepancy (as Kelly and Steve pointed out) is that they do not account for background in the GOES data. So weaker flares get a larger systematic bump in their estimated energies compared to stronger flares, which would naturally show up as a steepening of the distribution as the background increases during times of high activity.

]]>