SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “JuMP”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Performance of a Grid-Forming Inverter Under Balanced and Unbalanced Voltage Phase Angle Jump Conditions .
Abstract not provided.
Jump-Down Performance Alterations after Space Flight
INTRODUCTION: Successful jump performance requires functional coordination of visual, vestibular, and somatosensory systems, which are affected by prolonged exposure to microgravity. Astronauts returning from space flight exhibit impaired ability to coordinate effective landing strategies when jumping from a platform to the ground. This study compares jump strategies used by astronauts before and after flight, changes to those strategies within a test session, and recoveries in jump-down performance parameters across several postflight test sessions. These data were obtained as part of an ongoing interdisciplinary study (Functional Task Test, FTT) designed to evaluate both astronaut postflight functional performance and related physiological changes. METHODS: Seven astronauts from short-duration (Shuttle) and three from long-duration (International Space Station) flights performed 3 two-footed jumps from a platform 30 cm high onto a force plate that measured the ground reaction forces and center-of-pressure displacement from the landings. Neuromuscular activation data were collected from the medial gastrocnemius and anterior tibialis of both legs using surface electromyography electrodes. Two load cells in the platform measured the load exerted by each foot during the takeoff phase of the jump. Data were collected in 2 preflight sessions, on landing day (Shuttle only), and 1, 6, and 30 days after flight. RESULTS: Postural settling time was significantly increased on the first postflight test session and many of the astronauts tested were unable to maintain balance on their first jump landing but recovered by the third jump, showing a learning progression in which performance improvements could be attributed to adjustments in takeoff or landing strategy. Jump strategy changes were evident in reduced air time (time between takeoff and landing) and also in increased asymmetry in foot latencies on takeoff. CONCLUSIONS: The test results revealed significant decrements in astronauts abilities to maintain balance and achieve a postural stability upon landing from a jump early after flight. However, the jump landing adaptation process often begins after the first jump with full recovery of most performance parameters within days after space flight. As expected, performance of ISS astronauts on the first day after flight was similar to that of Shuttle crewmembers on landing day.
Integration of the Total Lightning Jump Algorithm into Current Operational Warning Environment Conceptual Models
The presence and rates of total lightning are both correlated to and physically dependent upon storm updraft strength, mixed phase precipitation volume and the size of the charging zone. The updraft modulates the ingredients necessary for electrification within a thunderstorm, while the updraft also plays a critical role in the development of severe and hazardous weather. Therefore utilizing this relationship, the monitoring of lightning rates and jumps provides an additional piece of information on the evolution of a thunderstorm, more often than not, at higher temporal resolution than current operational radar systems. This correlation is the basis for the total lightning jump algorithm that has been developed in recent years. In order to become a viable option for operational forecasters to incorporate into their severe storm monitoring process, the total lightning jump must be placed into the framework of several severe storm conceptual models (e.g., radar evolution, storm morphology) which forecasters have built through training and experience. Thus, one of the goals of this study is to examine and relate the lightning jump concept to often used radar parameters (e.g., dBZ vertical structure, VIL, MESH, MESO/shear) in the warning environment. Tying lightning trends and lightning jump occurrences to these radar based parameters will provide forecasters with an additional tool that they can use to build an accurate realtime depiction as to what is going on in a given environment. Furthermore, relating the lightning jump concept to these parameters could also increase confidence in a warning decision they have already made, help tip the scales on whether or not to warn on a given storm, or to draw the forecaster s attention to a particular storm that is rapidly developing. Furthermore the lightning information will add vital storm scale information in regions that are not well covered by radar, or when radar failures occur. The physical basis for the lightning jump algorithm in relation to severe storm dynamics and microphysics is a key component that must be further explored. Many radar studies have examined flash rates and their relation to updraft strength, updraft volume, precipitation -sized ice mass, etc.; however, very few have related the concept of the lightning jump and manifestation of severe weather to storm dynamics and microphysics using multi -Doppler and polarimetric radar techniques. Therefore, the second half of this study will combine the lightning jump algorithm and these radar techniques in order to place the lightning jump concept into a physical and dynamical framework. This analysis includes examining such parameters as mixed phase precipitation volume, charging zone, updraft strength and updraft volume. Such a study should provide increased understanding of and confidence in the strengths and limitations of the lightning jump algorithm in the storm warning process.
Integration of the Total Lightning Jump Algorithm into Current Operational Warning Environment Conceptual Models
The presence and rates of total lightning are both correlated to and physically dependent upon storm updraft strength, mixed phase precipitation volume and the size of the charging zone. The updraft modulates the ingredients necessary for electrification within a thunderstorm, while the updraft also plays a critical role in the development of severe and hazardous weather. Therefore utilizing this relationship, the monitoring of lightning rates and jumps provides an additional piece of information on the evolution of a thunderstorm, more often than not, at higher temporal resolution than current operational radar systems. This correlation is the basis for the total lightning jump algorithm that has been developed in recent years. Currently, the lightning jump algorithm is being tested in two separate but important efforts. Schultz et al. (2014; AMS 10th Satellite Symposium) is exploring the transition of the algorithm from its research based formulation to a fully objective algorithm that includes storm tracking, Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) Proxy data and the lightning jump algorithm. Chronis et al. (2014; this conference) provides context for the transition to current operational forecasting using lightning mapping array based products. However, what remains is an end to end physical and dynamical basis for relating lightning rates to severe storm manifestation, so the forecaster has a reason beyond simple correlation to utilize the lightning jump algorithm within their severe storm conceptual models. Therefore, the physical basis for the lightning jump algorithm in relation to severe storm dynamics and microphysics is a key component that must be further explored. Many radar studies have examined flash rates and their relation to updraft strength, updraft volume, precipitation‐sized ice mass, etc.; however, relation specifically to lightning jumps is fragmented within the literature. Thus the goal of this study is to use multiple Doppler techniques to resolve the physical and dynamical storm characteristics specifically around the time of the lightning jump. This information will help forecasters anticipate lightning jump occurrence, or even be of use to determine future characteristics of a given storm (e.g., development of a mesocyclone, downdraft, or hail signature on radar), providing additional lead time/confidence in the severe storm warning paradigm.
Physical and Dynamical Linkages between Lightning Jumps and Storm Conceptual Models
The presence and rates of total lightning are both correlated to and physically dependent upon storm updraft strength, mixed phase precipitation volume and the size of the charging zone. The updraft modulates the ingredients necessary for electrification within a thunderstorm, while the updraft also plays a critical role in the development of severe and hazardous weather. Therefore utilizing this relationship, the monitoring of lightning rates and jumps provides an additional piece of information on the evolution of a thunderstorm, more often than not, at higher temporal resolution than current operational radar systems. This correlation is the basis for the total lightning jump algorithm that has been developed in recent years. Currently, the lightning jump algorithm is being tested in two separate but important efforts. Schultz et al. (2014; this conference) is exploring the transition of the algorithm from its research based formulation to a fully objective algorithm that includes storm tracking, Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) Proxy data and the lightning jump algorithm. Chronis et al. (2014; this conference) provides context for the transition to current operational forecasting using lightning mapping array based products. However, what remains is an end-to-end physical and dynamical basis for coupling total lightning flash rates to severe storm manifestation, so the forecaster has a reason beyond simple correlation to utilize the lightning jump algorithm within their severe storm conceptual models. Therefore, the physical basis for the lightning jump algorithm in relation to severe storm dynamics and microphysics is a key component that must be further explored. Many radar studies have examined flash rates and their relationship to updraft strength, updraft volume, precipitation-sized ice mass, etc.; however, their relationship specifically to lightning jumps is fragmented within the literature. Thus the goal of this study is to use multiple Doppler and polarimetric radar techniques to resolve the physical and dynamical storm characteristics specifically around the time of the lightning jump. This information will help forecasters anticipate lightning jump occurrence, or even be of use to determine future characteristics of a given storm (e.g., development of a mesocyclone, downdraft, or hail signature on radar), providing additional lead time/confidence in the severe storm warning paradigm.
Physical and Dynamical Linkages Between Lightning Jumps and Storm Conceptual Models
The presence and rates of total lightning are both correlated to and physically dependent upon storm updraft strength, mixed phase precipitation volume and the size of the charging zone. The updraft modulates the ingredients necessary for electrification within a thunderstorm, while the updraft also plays a critical role in the development of severe and hazardous weather. Therefore utilizing this relationship, the monitoring of lightning rates and jumps provides an additional piece of information on the evolution of a thunderstorm, more often than not, at higher temporal resolution than current operational radar systems. This correlation is the basis for the total lightning jump algorithm that has been developed in recent years. Currently, the lightning jump algorithm is being tested in two separate but important efforts. Schultz et al. (2014; this conference) is exploring the transition of the algorithm from its research based formulation to a fully objective algorithm that includes storm tracking, Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) Proxy data and the lightning jump algorithm. Chronis et al. (2014) provides context for the transition to current operational forecasting using lightning mapping array based products. However, what remains is an end-to-end physical and dynamical basis for coupling total lightning flash rates to severe storm manifestation, so the forecaster has a reason beyond simple correlation to utilize the lightning jump algorithm within their severe storm conceptual models. Therefore, the physical basis for the lightning jump algorithm in relation to severe storm dynamics and microphysics is a key component that must be further explored. Many radar studies have examined flash rates and their relationship to updraft strength, updraft volume, precipitation-sized ice mass, etc.; however, their relationship specifically to lightning jumps is fragmented within the literature. Thus the goal of this study is to use multiple Doppler and polarimetric radar techniques to resolve the physical and dynamical storm characteristics specifically around the time of the lightning jump. This information will help forecasters anticipate lightning jump occurrence, or even be of use to determine future characteristics of a given storm (e.g., development of a mesocyclone, downdraft, or hail signature on radar), providing additional lead time/confidence in the severe storm warning paradigm.
3-D Simulations of earthquakes rupture jumps: 1. Homogeneous pre-stress conditions
SUMMARY Observational and modelling studies indicate that earthquake ruptures can jump between fault sections as large as ∼3 and ∼5 km for compressional and extensional offsets, respectively. Here, we compare characteristics of the rupture jump process on parallel but offset fault sections from traditional 3-D dynamic rupture simulations governed by slip weakening friction using the finite element code, FaultMod, to those from quasi-dynamic simulations governed by rate- and state-dependent friction (rate-state friction) using the code RSQSim. These simulations use spatially uniform initial stresses. For a variety of measures the rupture renucleation position on the offset fault, the rate-state friction and slip weakening friction models produce very similar results. The principal difference is the additional occurrence of delayed rupture jumps that arise from the time- and stress-dependent nucleation that is characteristic of rate-state friction. For immediate rupture jumps, models with slip weakening friction span greater offsets than those with rate-state friction. However the jump distances are nearly identical when delayed rupture jumps are included in the comparisons. We propose that delayed rupture jumps are the likely mechanism for adjacent large-earthquake pairs and clusters. Based on the similarity of renucleation positions with both dynamic and quasi-dynamic models, we conclude that the renucleation positions for rupture initiation on the receiver fault (separated by less than ∼3 km from the source fault) are primarily controlled by static stress changes induced by slip on the initiating fault. However, in light of the slightly greater maximum jump distances (>3 km) seen with the dynamic slip weakening friction model, dynamic stress changes from seismic waves play an increasingly important role as offset distances increase.
Changes in Jump-Down Performance After Space Flight: Short- and Long-Term Adaptation
INTRODUCTION Successful jump performance requires functional coordination of visual, vestibular, and somatosensory systems, which are affected by prolonged exposure to microgravity. Astronauts returning from space flight exhibit impaired ability to coordinate effective landing strategies when jumping from a platform to the ground. This study compares the jump strategies used by astronauts before and after flight, the changes to those strategies within a test session, and the recoveries in jump-down performance parameters across several postflight test sessions. These data were obtained as part of an ongoing interdisciplinary study (Functional Task Test, FTT) designed to evaluate both astronaut postflight functional performance and related physiological changes. METHODS Six astronauts from short-duration (Shuttle) and three from long-duration (International Space Station) flights performed 3 two-footed jumps from a platform 30 cm high. A force plate measured the ground reaction forces and center-of-pressure displacement from the landings. Muscle activation data were collected from the medial gastrocnemius and anterior tibialis of both legs using surface electromyography electrodes. Two load cells in the platform measured the load exerted by each foot during the takeoff phase of the jump. Data were collected in 2 preflight sessions, on landing day (Shuttle only), and 1, 6, and 30 days after flight. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION Many of the astronauts tested were unable to maintain balance on their first postflight jump landing but recovered by the third jump, showing a learning progression in which the performance improvement could be attributed to adjustments of strategy on takeoff, landing, or both. Takeoff strategy changes were evident in air time (time between takeoff and landing), which was significantly reduced after flight, and also in increased asymmetry in foot latencies on takeoff. Landing modifications were seen in changes in ground reaction force curves. The results demonstrate astronauts adaptive capabilities and full performance recovery within days after flight.
Advancements in the Development of an Operational Lightning Jump Algorithm for GOES-R GLM
Rapid increases in total lightning have been shown to precede the manifestation of severe weather at the surface. These rapid increases have been termed lightning jumps, and are the current focus of algorithm development for the GOES-R Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM). Recent lightning jump algorithm work has focused on evaluation of algorithms in three additional regions of the country, as well as, markedly increasing the number of thunderstorms in order to evaluate the each algorithm s performance on a larger population of storms. Lightning characteristics of just over 600 thunderstorms have been studied over the past four years. The 2 lightning jump algorithm continues to show the most promise for an operational lightning jump algorithm, with a probability of detection of 82%, a false alarm rate of 35%, a critical success index of 57%, and a Heidke Skill Score of 0.73 on the entire population of thunderstorms. Average lead time for the 2 algorithm on all severe weather is 21.15 minutes, with a standard deviation of +/- 14.68 minutes. Looking at tornadoes alone, the average lead time is 18.71 minutes, with a standard deviation of +/-14.88 minutes. Moreover, removing the 2 lightning jumps that occur after a jump has been detected, and before severe weather is detected at the ground, the 2 lightning jump algorithm s false alarm rate drops from 35% to 21%. Cold season, low topped, and tropical environments cause problems for the 2 lightning jump algorithm, due to their relative dearth in lightning as compared to a supercellular or summertime airmass thunderstorm environment.
Preliminary Development and Evaluation of Lightning Jump Algorithms for the Real-Time Detection of Severe Weather
Previous studies have demonstrated that rapid increases in total lightning activity (intracloud + cloud-to-ground) are often observed tens of minutes in advance of the occurrence of severe weather at the ground. These rapid increases in lightning activity have been termed "lightning jumps." Herein, we document a positive correlation between lightning jumps and the manifestation of severe weather in thunderstorms occurring across the Tennessee Valley and Washington D.C. A total of 107 thunderstorms were examined in this study, with 69 of the 107 thunderstorms falling into the category of non-severe, and 38 into the category of severe. From the dataset of 69 isolated non-severe thunderstorms, an average peak 1 minute flash rate of 10 flashes/min was determined. A variety of severe thunderstorm types were examined for this study including an MCS, MCV, tornadic outer rainbands of tropical remnants, supercells, and pulse severe thunderstorms. Of the 107 thunderstorms, 85 thunderstorms (47 non-severe, 38 severe) from the Tennessee Valley and Washington D.C tested 6 lightning jump algorithm configurations (Gatlin, Gatlin 45, 2(sigma), 3(sigma), Threshold 10, and Threshold 8). Performance metrics for each algorithm were then calculated, yielding encouraging results from the limited sample of 85 thunderstorms. The 2(sigma) lightning jump algorithm had a high probability of detection (POD; 87%), a modest false alarm rate (FAR; 33%), and a solid Heidke Skill Score (HSS; 0.75). A second and more simplistic lightning jump algorithm named the Threshold 8 lightning jump algorithm also shows promise, with a POD of 81% and a FAR of 41%. Average lead times to severe weather occurrence for these two algorithms were 23 minutes and 20 minutes, respectively. The overall goal of this study is to advance the development of an operationally-applicable jump algorithm that can be used with either total lightning observations made from the ground, or in the near future from space using the GOES-R Geostationary Lightning Mapper.
Lightning Jump Algorithm Development for the GOES·R Geostationary Lightning Mapper
Current work on the lightning jump algorithm to be used in GOES‐R Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM)'s data stream is multifaceted due to the intricate interplay between the storm tracking, GLM proxy data, and the performance of the lightning jump itself. This work outlines the progress of the last year, where analysis and performance of the lightning jump algorithm with automated storm tracking and GLM proxy data were assessed using over 700 storms from North Alabama. The cases analyzed coincide with previous semi‐objective work performed using total lightning mapping array (LMA) measurements in Schultz et al. (2011). Analysis shows that key components of the algorithm (flash rate and sigma thresholds) have the greatest influence on the performance of the algorithm when validating using severe storm reports. Automated objective analysis using the GLM proxy data has shown probability of detection (POD) values around 60% with false alarm rates (FAR) around 73% using similar methodology to Schultz et al. (2011). However, when applying verification methods similar to those employed by the National Weather Service, POD values increase slightly (69%) and FAR values decrease (63%). The relationship between storm tracking and lightning jump has also been tested in a real‐time framework at NSSL. This system includes fully automated tracking by radar alone, real‐time LMA and radar observations and the lightning jump. Results indicate that the POD is strong at 65%. However, the FAR is significantly higher than in Schultz et al. (2011) (50‐80% depending on various tracking/lightning jump parameters) when using storm reports for verification. Given known issues with Storm Data, the performance of the real‐time jump algorithm is also being tested with high density radar and surface observations from the NSSL Severe Hazards Analysis & Verification Experiment (SHAVE).
The Paschen Jump as a Diagnostic of the Diffuse Nebular Continuum Emission in Active Galactic Nuclei*
Photoionization modeling of active galactic nuclei (AGN) predicts that diffuse continuum (DC) emission from the broad-line region makes a substantial contribution to the total continuum emission from ultraviolet through near-infrared wavelengths. Evidence for this DC component is present in the strong Balmer jump feature in AGN spectra, and possibly from reverberation measurements that find longer lags than expected from disk emission alone. However, the Balmer jump region contains numerous blended emission features, making it difficult to isolate the DC emission strength. In contrast, the Paschen jump region near 8200 Å is relatively uncontaminated by other strong emission features. Here, we examine whether the Paschen jump can aid in constraining the DC contribution, using Hubble Space Telescope Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph spectra of six nearby Seyfert 1 nuclei. The spectra appear smooth across the Paschen edge, and we find no evidence of a Paschen spectral break or jump in total flux. We fit multicomponent spectral models over the range 6800–9700 Å and find that the spectra can still be compatible with a significant DC contribution if the DC Paschen jump is offset by an opposite spectral break resulting from blended high-order Paschen emission lines. The fits imply DC contributions ranging from ~10% to 50% at 8000 Å, but the fitting results are highly dependent on assumptions made about other model components. These degeneracies can potentially be alleviated by carrying out fits over a broader wavelength range, provided that models can accurately represent the disk continuum shape, Fe ii emission, high-order Balmer line emission, and other components.
The Application of Nonstandard Analysis to the Study of Inviscid Shock Wave Jump Conditions
The use of conservation laws in nonconservative form for deriving shock jump conditions by Schwartz distribution theory leads to ambiguous products of generalized functions. Nonstandard analysis is used to define a class of Heaviside functions where the jump from zero to one occurs on an infinitesimal interval. These Heaviside functions differ by their microstructure near x = 0, i.e., by the nature of the rise within the infinitesimal interval it is shown that the conservation laws in nonconservative form can relate the different Heaviside functions used to define jumps in different flow parameters. There are no mathematical or logical ambiguities in the derivation of the jump conditions. An important result is that the microstructure of the Heaviside function of the jump in entropy has a positive peak greater than one within the infinitesimal interval where the jump occurs. This phenomena is known from more sophisticated studies of the structure of shock waves using viscous fluid assumption. However, the present analysis is simpler and more direct.
Recent Advancements in Lightning Jump Algorithm Work
In the past year, the primary objectives were to show the usefulness of total lightning as compared to traditional cloud-to-ground (CG) networks, test the lightning jump algorithm configurations in other regions of the country, increase the number of thunderstorms within our thunderstorm database, and to pinpoint environments that could prove difficult for any lightning jump configuration. A total of 561 thunderstorms have been examined in the past year (409 non-severe, 152 severe) from four regions of the country (North Alabama, Washington D.C., High Plains of CO/KS, and Oklahoma). Results continue to indicate that the 2 lightning jump algorithm configuration holds the most promise in terms of prospective operational lightning jump algorithms, with a probability of detection (POD) at 81%, a false alarm rate (FAR) of 45%, a critical success index (CSI) of 49% and a Heidke Skill Score (HSS) of 0.66. The second best performing algorithm configuration was the Threshold 4 algorithm, which had a POD of 72%, FAR of 51%, a CSI of 41% and an HSS of 0.58. Because a more complex algorithm configuration shows the most promise in terms of prospective operational lightning jump algorithms, accurate thunderstorm cell tracking work must be undertaken to track lightning trends on an individual thunderstorm basis over time. While these numbers for the 2 configuration are impressive, the algorithm does have its weaknesses. Specifically, low-topped and tropical cyclone thunderstorm environments are present issues for the 2 lightning jump algorithm, because of the suppressed vertical depth impact on overall flash counts (i.e., a relative dearth in lightning). For example, in a sample of 120 thunderstorms from northern Alabama that contained 72 missed events by the 2 algorithm 36% of the misses were associated with these two environments (17 storms).
An Overview of the Total Lightning Jump Algorithm: Past, Present and Future Work
Rapid increases in total lightning prior to the onset of severe and hazardous weather have been observed for several decades. These rapid increases are known as lightning jumps and can precede the occurrence of severe weather by tens of minutes. Over the past decade, a significant effort has been made to quantify lightning jump behavior in relation to its utility as a predictor of severe and hazardous weather. Based on a study of 34 thunderstorms that occurred in the Tennessee Valley, early work conducted in our group at Huntsville determined that it was indeed possible to create a reasonable operational lightning jump algorithm (LJA) based on a statistical framework relying on the variance behavior of the lightning trending signal. We the expanded this framework and tested several variance-related LJA configurations on a much larger sample of 87 severe and non severe thunderstorms. This study determined that a configuration named the "2(sigma)" algorithm had the most promise in development of the operational LJA with a probability of detection (POD) of 87%, a false alarm rate (FAR) of 33%, a Heidke Skill Score (HSS) of 0.75. The 2(sigma) algorithm was then tested on an even larger sample of 711 thunderstorms of all types from four regions of the country where total lightning measurement capability existed. The result was very encouraging.Despite the larger number of storms and the inclusion of different regions of the country, the POD remained high (79%), the FAR was low (36%) and HSS was solid (0.71). Average lead time from jump to severe weather occurrence was 20.65 minutes, with a standard deviation of +/- 15 minutes. Also, trends in total lightning were compared to cloud to ground (CG) lightning trends, and it was determined that total lightning trends had a higher POD (79% vs 66%), lower FAR (36% vs 54 %) and a better HSS (0.71 vs 0.55). From the 711-storm case study it was determined that a majority of missed events were due to severe weather producing thunderstorms in low flashing environments. The latest efforts have been geared toward examining these low flashing storms in order to adjust the algorithm for such storms, thus enhancing the capability of the LJA. Future work will test the algorithm in real time using current satellite and radar based cell tracking methods, as well as, comparing total lightning jump occurrence to both satellite based and ground base observations of thunderstorms to create correlations between lightning jumps and the observed structures within thunderstorms. Finally this algorithm will need to be tested using Geostationary Lightning Mapper proxy data to transition the algorithm from VHF ground based lightning measurements to lower frequency space-based lightning measurements.
Integration of the Total Lightning Jump Algorithm into Current Operational Warning Environment Conceptual Models
Key points that this analysis will begin to address are: 1)What physically is going on in the cloud when there is a jump in lightning? - Updraft variations, ice fluxes. 2)How do these processes fit in with severe storm conceptual models? 3)What would this information provide an end user (i.e., the forecaster)? - Relate LJA to radar observations, like changes in reflectivity, MESH, VIL, etc. based multi-Doppler derived physical relationships 4) How do we best transistionthis algorithm into the warning decision process. The known relationship between lightning updraft strength/volume and precipitation ice mass production can be extended to the concept of the lightning jump. Examination of the first lightning jump times from 329 storms in Schultz et al. shows an increase in the mean reflectivity profile and mixed phase echo volume during the 10 minutes prior to the lightning jump. Limited dual-Doppler results show that the largest lightning jumps are well correlated in time with increases in updraft strength/volume and precipitation ice mass production; however, the smaller magnitude lightning jumps appear to have more subtle relationships to updraft and ice mass characteristics.
Testing the Jump Finding Code for NEXUS Qubit Analysis
At Fermilab, the NEXUS dilution refrigerator is repeating the same experiment from Wilen et al. 1 underground to further investigate the effect of ionizing radiation and cosmic ray muons on qubit decoherence. This refrigerator is 100m underground in the MINOS cavern to significantly lower the incident rate of cosmic ray muons, meaning the majority of incidents is due to ionizing radiation. To gain a better understanding of how the rate of ionizing radiation affects the qubits, we use 4 radiation configurations to collect data from the chip. In this work, we examine the efficiency of our jump detection code to find jumps of various sizes. We do so using simulated data with a known number of injected jumps of known sizes. These jumps are charge offsets of the qubit, thought to be due to quasiparticle poisoning. To test this, we run the jump finding code on an array of simulated data in which two main parameters, the smoothing factor and the threshold at which a charge offset is considered a jump, are changed to test an array of these parameters. We then perform a χ2 analysis to find the best combination of these two parameters.