<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-09-19T03:42:35Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/91073" metadataPrefix="dim">https://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/91073</identifier><datestamp>2022-01-13T07:54:07Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_1721.1_7582</setSpec><setSpec>com_1721.1_7581</setSpec><setSpec>col_1721.1_131023</setSpec></header><metadata><dim:dim xmlns:dim="http://www.dspace.org/xmlns/dspace/dim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.dspace.org/xmlns/dspace/dim http://www.dspace.org/schema/dim.xsd">
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="advisor" lang="en_US">James L. Terry and Earl S. Marmar.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="author" lang="en_US">Sierchio, Jennifer Marie</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="other" lang="en_US">Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Physics.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="department">Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Physics</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="accessioned">2014-10-21T17:24:27Z</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="available">2014-10-21T17:24:27Z</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="copyright" lang="en_US">2014</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="issued" lang="en_US">2014</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="identifier" qualifier="uri">http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/91073</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="identifier" qualifier="oclc" lang="en_US">892486974</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Thesis: S.M., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics, 2014.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">30</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Includes bibliographical references (pages 117-119).</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="abstract" lang="en_US">In the past, two methods for analyzing data from the Gas Puff Imaging diagnostic on Alcator C-Mod have been used. One uses temporal and spatial Fourier analysis to obtain wavenumber-frequency spectra, from which a phase velocity is computed [1, 2]. The other is based on time-delay cross-correlation of successive images used to track the motion of discrete emission structures [3, 4]. Several Gas-Puff-Imaging experiments were conducted to obtain data taken using the GPI Phantom Camera. The analysis of and results from these data are discussed in [3]. The results showed that the tracking time-delay-estimation technique found poloidal velocity magnitudes in the 0.1-1.4 km/sec range. However, independent examination of these data using the Fourier analysis yielded magnitudes up to a factor of 10 larger for the same data, and sometimes even disagreed with the direction of motion found. To understand the reasons for these discrepancies, we designed and generated synthetic data that mimics the real data. The user inputs the velocities, sizes, intensities, and distributions of the synthetic emission structures. We have used the synthetic data to test each code rigorously for strengths, weaknesses, and weighting. We have found that the Fourier analysis perfectly returns the correct poloidal velocity when there is no radial velocity component present. We have found that the tracking TDE analysis weights low frequency, low wavenumber features most heavily since they are typically the most intense, but systematically returns a smaller velocity than expected due to issues associated with averaging. After adjusting for these issues, the tracking TDE code now returns the correct value of the poloidal and radial velocities to within 10% for synthetic data as long as there is only one velocity present in the synthetic simulation. We applied these corrections to the analysis of the real data, and found that the measurements changed little in most cases. We then examined, in detail, the Fourier-analysis-derived "conditional" spectra for each shot, and determined that the likely causes for the discrepancies are due either to multiple velocities with emission structures moving in opposite directions in the same field of view or to non-zero "dispersion" in which lower-frequency/lower-wavenumber features are moving with one phase velocity and higher-frequency/higher-wavenumber features are moving with a different phase velocity. In a couple of cases, there may be a radial component in the actual images that may affect the poloidal velocity measurement for the Fourier analysis. Accounting for these explanations, we believe that we have resolved the discrepancies in many cases, and can explain it in the others.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="statementofresponsibility" lang="en_US">by Jennifer Marie Sierchio.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="degree" lang="en_US">S.M.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="format" qualifier="extent" lang="en_US">119 pages</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="language" qualifier="iso" lang="en_US">eng</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="publisher" lang="en_US">Massachusetts Institute of Technology</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="rights" lang="en_US">M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="rights" qualifier="uri" lang="en_US">http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="subject" lang="en_US">Physics.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="title" lang="en_US">Comparison of edge turbulence velocity analysis techniques using Gas Puff Imaging data on Alcator C-Mod</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="type" lang="en_US">Thesis</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="format" qualifier="mimetype">application/pdf</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dspace" element="authorsordered">false</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dspace" element="entity" qualifier="type">Publication</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="others" element="access-status">unknown</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="others" element="access-status">unknown</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="cerif" element="openaire" authority="" confidence="-1">&lt;Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="2fb25e72-00d7-4d4c-8883-9982e21e8b89">
	&lt;Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843&lt;/Type>
	&lt;Language>eng&lt;/Language>
   	&lt;Title>Comparison of edge turbulence velocity analysis techniques using Gas Puff Imaging data on Alcator C-Mod&lt;/Title>
   	&lt;PublishedIn>
    	&lt;Publication>
      	&lt;/Publication>
   	&lt;/PublishedIn>
   	&lt;PublicationDate>2014&lt;/PublicationDate>
   	&lt;Authors>
      	&lt;Author>
        	&lt;DisplayName>Sierchio, Jennifer Marie&lt;/DisplayName>
         	&lt;Affiliation>
         		&lt;OrgUnit>
         		&lt;/OrgUnit>
         	&lt;/Affiliation>
      	&lt;/Author>
	&lt;/Authors>
   	&lt;Editors>
	&lt;/Editors>
    &lt;Publishers>
        &lt;Publisher>
            &lt;DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology&lt;/DisplayName>
            &lt;OrgUnit />
        &lt;/Publisher>
    &lt;/Publishers>
    &lt;License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582&lt;/License>
    &lt;Keyword>Physics.&lt;/Keyword>
   	&lt;Abstract>In the past, two methods for analyzing data from the Gas Puff Imaging diagnostic on Alcator C-Mod have been used. One uses temporal and spatial Fourier analysis to obtain wavenumber-frequency spectra, from which a phase velocity is computed [1, 2]. The other is based on time-delay cross-correlation of successive images used to track the motion of discrete emission structures [3, 4]. Several Gas-Puff-Imaging experiments were conducted to obtain data taken using the GPI Phantom Camera. The analysis of and results from these data are discussed in [3]. The results showed that the tracking time-delay-estimation technique found poloidal velocity magnitudes in the 0.1-1.4 km/sec range. However, independent examination of these data using the Fourier analysis yielded magnitudes up to a factor of 10 larger for the same data, and sometimes even disagreed with the direction of motion found. To understand the reasons for these discrepancies, we designed and generated synthetic data that mimics the real data. The user inputs the velocities, sizes, intensities, and distributions of the synthetic emission structures. We have used the synthetic data to test each code rigorously for strengths, weaknesses, and weighting. We have found that the Fourier analysis perfectly returns the correct poloidal velocity when there is no radial velocity component present. We have found that the tracking TDE analysis weights low frequency, low wavenumber features most heavily since they are typically the most intense, but systematically returns a smaller velocity than expected due to issues associated with averaging. After adjusting for these issues, the tracking TDE code now returns the correct value of the poloidal and radial velocities to within 10% for synthetic data as long as there is only one velocity present in the synthetic simulation. We applied these corrections to the analysis of the real data, and found that the measurements changed little in most cases. We then examined, in detail, the Fourier-analysis-derived &amp;quot;conditional&amp;quot; spectra for each shot, and determined that the likely causes for the discrepancies are due either to multiple velocities with emission structures moving in opposite directions in the same field of view or to non-zero &amp;quot;dispersion&amp;quot; in which lower-frequency/lower-wavenumber features are moving with one phase velocity and higher-frequency/higher-wavenumber features are moving with a different phase velocity. In a couple of cases, there may be a radial component in the actual images that may affect the poloidal velocity measurement for the Fourier analysis. Accounting for these explanations, we believe that we have resolved the discrepancies in many cases, and can explain it in the others.&lt;/Abstract>
	&lt;Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right" 
    >
    &lt;/Access>
&lt;/Publication>
</dim:field>
</dim:dim>
</metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>