Galileo EPD Pre-Jupiter Calibrated Bundle Galileo EPD Pre-Jupiter Earth2 Resampled 15.0 minute Calibrated Data Collection PDS3 DATA_SET_ID = GO-E-EPD-4-SUMM-EARTH2-15MIN-V1.0 PDS3 DATA_SET_NAME = GO EARTH EPD RESAMPLED SUMMARY EARTH2 15.0 MIN V1.0 START_TIME = 1992-11-06T17:01:10.000 STOP_TIME = 1992-12-18T15:08:38.000 PDS3 DATA_SET_RELEASE_DATE = 1995-06-02 PRODUCER_FULL_NAME = CHRISTOPHER R. BRULL References: GO EARTH EPD RESAMPLED SUMMARY EARTH2 15.0 MIN V1.0, GO-E-EPD-4-SUMM-EARTH2-15MIN-V1.0, NASA Planetary Data System, 1995 Williams, D. J., R. W. McEntire, S. M. Krimigis, E. C. Roelof, S. Jaskulek, B. Tossman, B. Wilken, W. Studemann, T. P. Armstrong, T. A. Fritz, L. J. Lanzerotti, J. G. Roederer, Energetic Particles at Venus: Galileo Results, Science, 253, 1525, 1991. Haggerty, Dennis and Tom Armstrong, Memo to HiScale Investigator Team describing Quality Controlled Averaging subroutine, University of Kansas, June 22, 1993. Townsend, John P., Jr., Galileo Energetic Particles Detector Archive Processor, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, March, 1991. These data were originally archived in the following PDS3 data set: GO-E-EPD-4-SUMM-EARTH2-15MIN-V1.0 (https://doi.org/10.17189/1519640). Collection Overview =================== This collection contains 15 minute averaged rate data for all 64 EPD channels. The collection covers the Earth 2 encounnter data from 1992 Day 311 through day 353. All available motor positions except zero are included in the averages. The rates reported are in units of counts/sec. Each entry in the collection is averaged over a 15 minute time span by the 'Quality Controlled Averaging' routine developed by Dennis Haggerty and Tom Armstrong as part of the Ulysses HiScale project. NOTE =================== Data in this collection includes only that data which has valid data flag markers as a result of processing done by the Galileo Energetic Particles Detector Archive Processor. Depending on the tools used for EPD data analysis, it is possible to encounter the pitch angle of the detector being substituted for the pitch angle of the charged particles. For example, in Figure 4 of Williams et al. (1998), J. Geophys. Res., 103, 17,523-17,534, the authors show a loss at 0 deg PA, which if viewed carefully must be at 180 deg PA. It is therefore useful to exercise caution with pitch angles in the EPD data, depending on how the data are obtained.