Appendix F — Testing different models to calculate the peak height at Tucuman

Adv. Space Ret Vol. 15,No. 2 pp.(2)203_(2)206.1%‘5 CopyTight 8 1994COSPAR Printed in GreetBritain. All xi tareserved. 0273-l177/9 33” $7.00+ 0.00

APPENDIX F - TESTING DIFFERENT MODELS TO CALCULATE THE PEAK HEIGHT AT TUCUMAN N. Ortiz de Adler and A. M. Sauvage de Avila

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

hP

List of Considered Models

Pearson Correlation Matrix

hm Shim

hm hm WMCD Bent

,857

.857

.857

1

1

hm WMcD

,857

1

hm

.856

hm Dud

,856

hm

Dud

hm B-D

hm

va3

hm BES

hm Paul

,845

,850

.831

.857

,672

.999

,977

.985

.958

.993

,475

1

.999

,977

,985

.958

.993

,475

.999

,999

1

,977

,984

.957

.993

.475

.845

.977

.977

,977

1

,998

,995

,992

.500

hm B-D

,850

.985

.985

,984

.998

1

.991

hm

.831

.958

,958

.957

.995

.991

1

,980

.500

hm BES

.857

.993

,993

.993

,992

,996

.980

1

.490

hm

.672

.475

,475

,475

.500

.495

,500

.490

1

hP

hm Shim

Bent

Paul

,996

,495

N. Ortiz de Adler and A. M. &wage de Avila -QI

-IO

-t--

-In

-

“f

E -u

__.-

“8-I

_..-a -VI

*--_ -N

-0

Fi

310

3OD

>

E

2204 012

240

290

320

xE

I

I,

3

# 4

I 8

I 7

r B

I 9

I 10

s 11

median hmF2 vs. LT: Shim [2]+-and

Local Time

I s

\D \

I 12

i

I

Locd Tfme

a

9

10

11

Fig. 4. Monthly median hmF2 vs. LT: B-D [S]-a,_ and DudI I] IRI (8]-t,

01234587

2204

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

33D

I

12

I

N. Chtiz de Adler and A. M. Sawage de Avila

340 330 320 310

L

L

I

200

, r 0123456789

1

I

II

I

I

I

r 1 lrl 11

LocoI Time

Fig. 5. Monthly median IRI IaJ-t-, WMcD [3]+, and Eyfrig (6) .-.I...

hmF2 vs. LT: Bent [4)--a--

12