We report our findings comparing the geometric factor (⁠

$\mathbb {GF}$
GF⁠) as determined from simulations and laboratory measurements of the new Dual Electron Spectrometer (DES) being developed at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center as part of the Fast Plasma Investigation on NASA’s Magnetospheric Multiscale mission. Particle simulations are increasingly playing an essential role in the design and calibration of electrostatic analyzers, facilitating the identification and mitigation of the many sources of systematic error present in laboratory calibration. While equations for laboratory measurement of the
$\mathbb {GF}$
GF have been described in the literature, these are not directly applicable to simulation since the two are carried out under substantially different assumptions and conditions, making direct comparison very challenging. Starting from first principles, we derive generalized expressions for the determination of the
$\mathbb {GF}$
GF in simulation and laboratory, and discuss how we have estimated errors in both cases. Finally, we apply these equations to the new DES instrument and show that the results agree within errors. Thus we show that the techniques presented here will produce consistent results between laboratory and simulation, and present the first description of the performance of the new DES instrument in the literature.

Topics
Electrostatics, Spacecrafts, Space instruments, Electron spectroscopy, Computer simulation, Display devices, Optical properties, Particle accelerators, Magnetic reconnection, Plasmas
1.
M.
 
Wuest
,
D.
 
Evans
, and
R. V.
 
Steiger
,
ISSI Scientific Report
 
SR-007
,
2007
.
Google Scholar
 
2.
J. H.
 
Vilppola
,
J. T.
 
Keisala
,
P. J.
 
Tanskanen
, and
H.
 
Huomo
,
Rev. Sci. Instrum.
 
64
,
2190
(
1993
).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1143958
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
3.
T. J. M.
 
Zouros
,
O.
 
Sinse
,
F. M.
 
Spiegelhalder
, and
D. J.
 
Manura
,
Int. J. Mass. Spectrom
 
261
,
115
(
2007
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2006.08.005
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
4.
D. J.
 
Knudsen
 et al.,
Rev. Sci. Instrum.
 
74
,
202
(
2003
).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1525869
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
5.
A. D.
 
Johnstone
 et al.,
J. Phys. E
 
20
,
795
(
1987
).
https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3735/20/6/038
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
6.
L. M.
 
Chase
,
Rev. Sci. Instrum.
 
44
,
998
(
1973
).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1686345
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
7.
C. W.
 
Carlson
,
D. W.
 
Curtis
,
G.
 
Paschmann
, and
W.
 
Michel
,
Adv. Space Res.
 
2
,
67
(
1982
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1177(82)90151-X
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
8.
G. A.
 
Collinson
 et al.,
Meas. Sci. Technol.
 
20
,
055204
(
2009
).
https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/20/5/055204
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
9.
R. D.
 
Woodliffe
 and
A. D.
 
Johnstone
, Measurement Techniques in Space Plasmas – Particles, edited by
R. F.
 
Pfaff
,
J. E.
 
Borovsky
, and
D. T.
 
Young
,
1998
, p.
263
.
10.
G. A.
 
Collinson
 and
D. O.
 
Kataria
,
Meas. Sci. Technol.
 
21
,
105903
(
2010
).
https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/21/10/105903
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
11.
U.
 
Rohner
 et al.,
Meas. Sci. Technol.
 
23
,
025901
(
2012
).
https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/23/2/025901
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
12.
R. L.
 
Kessel
,
A. D.
 
Johnstone
,
A. J.
 
Coates
, and
R. A.
 
Gowen
,
Rev. Sci. Instrum.
 
60
,
3750
(
1989
).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1141075
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
13.
C. W.
 
Carlson
 and
J. P.
 
McFadden
, Measurement Techniques in Space Plasmas – Particles, edited by
R. F.
 
Pfaff
,
J. E.
 
Borovsky
, and
D. T.
 
Young
,
1998
, pp.
125
–+.
14.
J. L.
 
Wiza
,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods
 
162
,
587
(
1979
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-554X(79)90734-1
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
15.
A. D.
 
Johnstone
 et al.,
Space Sci. Rev.
 
79
,
351
(
1997
).
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004938001388
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
16.
J.
 
Sauvaud
 et al.,
Space Sci. Rev.
 
136
,
227
(
2008
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-007-9174-6
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
17.
D. T.
 
Young
 et al.,
Space Sci. Rev.
 
129
,
327
(
2007
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-007-9177-3
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
18.
O. L.
 
Vaisberg
 et al.,
Complex Plasma Analyzer SCA-1
(
RKA-IKI-CESR-CNES
,
1995
), pp.
170
–
177
.
Google Scholar
 
19.
K. W.
 
Ogilvie
 et al.,
Space Sci. Rev.
 
71
,
55
(
1995
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00751326
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
20.
G. R.
 
Lewis
 et al.,
Planet. Space Sci.
 
58
(
2010
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2009.11.008
Google Scholar
 
21.
A. N.
 
Fazakerley
,
S. J.
 
Schwartz
, and
G. P.
 
Paschmann
,
Analysis Methods for Multi-Spacecraft Data
 
1
,
91
(
2000
).
Google Scholar
 
22.
J. P.
 
McFadden
 and
C. W.
 
Carlson
, Measurement Techniques in Space Plasmas – Particles, edited by
R. F.
 
Pfaff
,
J. E.
 
Borovsky
, and
D. T.
 
Young
,
1998
, pp.
249
–+.
23.
R. D.
 
Woodliffe
, “
Design of space borne plasma analysers by computer simulation
,” Ph.D. dissertation (
Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London
,
1991
).
Google Scholar
 
24.
G. A.
 
Collinson
, “
The computer simulated design of an improved plasma analyser towards an electron spectrometer for solar orbiter
,” Ph.D. dissertation (
Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London
,
2010
).
Google Scholar
 
25.
F.
 
Allegrini
 et al.,
Rev. Sci. Instrum.
 
80
,
104502
(
2009
).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3247906
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
26.
J. P.
 
McFadden
 et al.,
Space Sci. Rev.
 
141
,
277
(
2008
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-008-9440-2
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
27.
F.
 
Bordoni
,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods
 
97
,
405
(
1971
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-554X(71)90300-4
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
28.
H. C.
 
Straub
,
M. A.
 
Mangan
,
B. G.
 
Lindsay
,
K. A.
 
Smith
, and
R. F.
 
Stebbings
,
Rev. Sci. Instrum.
 
70
,
4238
(
1999
).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1150059
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
29.
R. R.
 
Goruganthu
 and
W. G.
 
Wilson
,
Rev. Sci. Instrum.
 
55
,
2030
(
1984
).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1137709
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
30.
R. S.
 
Gao
,
P. S.
 
Gibner
,
J. H.
 
Newman
,
K. A.
 
Smith
, and
R. F.
 
Stebbings
,
Rev. Sci. Instrum.
 
55
,
1756
(
1984
).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1137671
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
31.
N.
 
Kishimoto
,
M.
 
Nagamine
,
K.
 
Inami
,
Y.
 
Enari
, and
T.
 
Ohshima
,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A
 
564
,
204
(
2006
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2006.04.089
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
32.
L.
 
Austin
 and
H.
 
Starke
,
Ann. Phys. Lpz.
 
9
,
271
(
1902
).
https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19023141003
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
33.
E.
 
Rudberg
,
Proc. R. Soc. London
 
A127
,
111
(
1930
).
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1930.0046
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
34.
H.
 
Bruining
,
Physics and Applications of Secondary Electron Emission
(
Pergamon
,
New York
,
1954
).
Google Scholar
 
© 2012 American Institute of Physics.
2012
American Institute of Physics
You do not currently have access to this content.