It’s finally Friday! This week I continued work on the float website. I organized most of my matlab scripts and nested them all into one script so I can run it and update all the pages. I am a bit stuck right now because I’m not sure how to present the data. Currently I have plotted all the profiles, so you get an idea of the general trend as depth increases. Some of the plots that Emmanuel’s scripts produce are logarithmic and others are not. I’ll need an explanation of why some are and some are not on a log scale. I would really like to use three dimensional graphs to plot variables such as temperature, salinity, and depth. What I want to do is make a three dimensional graph that visitors can move and spin with their mouse. This would be much better than having a couple jpeg pictures of a three dimensional graph. I worked hard on trying to do this, however have not found a way yet. I tried using vrml first. Matlab has a function that will export a .wrl file, which was very convenient. I was able to embed this file into html code after exporting it. However, vrml files require special downloads that allow you to see them, and it just did not look very good once on the webpage. It would not plot tick marks on the axis and would not rotate the graph correctly, so I bagged that idea.


Next I found a function someone wrote to put a three dimensional graph into java format and embed that in html. So I fooled around with this, but I ended up needing the symbolic math toolbox for matlab. If you know where I could get this toolbox it would be a great help. If I were to get this toolbox I could put graphs such as these on the site

http://wwwpub.zih.tu-dresden.de/~s9034647/peaksurface.html

This would allow me to use some pretty cool graphing techniques to show float profiles. Using java was the only way I found to put a decent looking 3D object on the site. I felt like learning java would not be the best use of my time, so I am holding out hope I can get my hands on the symbolic math toolbox. If not, less exciting 2D plots are always an option. Other than that, I have changed the way matlab finds the pixels needed for clickable areas on the stereographical map. I have made each float (4738,6959,6810) on the map appear as red, green, or blue. Then I read the image into matlab in RGB format and used that to locate the red, green, and blue pixels that correspond to a specific float. Finally I exported a second map that is presented on the website, with the floats appearing as uniform colors. On a side note, I am afraid 4738 is the only float that is sending usable data.

The float data and website building has kept me occupied most of the week, but I have also worked on the paper discussing the radiometer data we collected. This is done for the most part, however I didn’t know if was supposed to include DiveSpec data in this paper as well….? If so I could do that quite easily. I divided the samples by the closes spectralon plaque readings, which gave me a percent reflectance. What I wasn’t thinking about was that the spectralon plaque is only 95% not 100% reflectance. Dividing the sample by the spectralon plaque implies that plaque reflectance is 100%. This will cause the percent reflectance to be slightly higher than it truly is, but it will not change the shape of the graph. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe this to be a problem as long as it is mentioned in the paper. It is also unfortunate that the only way I can identify the algae and sponge readings is by “a species of sponge” or “a species of algae” and not a species name. It’s rather unscientific to say that a comparison was done between Didemnum sp. and a sponge. I am disappointed I couldn’t have been there to get a look at these sponges and get somewhat of identification. I just found out this week that my surgeon apparently never returned the doctor in Bangor’s call. So I need to get a hold of him and have him call this guy in Bangor. I am rather sour about this whole situation. I’ve been diving almost every weekend since the beginning of June. It’s unfortunate I can’t help with the in water radiometer work. In any case I want to have this cleared up before I head to DMC this fall.

I have been using the subplot tool in matlab frequently this week, both for the radiometer data and the float data. For example:

Also this week, Alina and I finally got some more pictures taken. We ended up putting the laser pointer as close to the camera as possible, but out of the frame. The solutions were made in five liters of water, and the pictures were taken in the same five liter bucket they were made in. The pictures came out relatively well; unfortunately I don’t have them on my computer to show you. They will require a fare amount of cropping to remove bits of reflected light off the bucket and surrounding objects. I’m glad we were able to get something usable though.

Looking toward the future, when Emmanuel gets back, I had some ideas about the next time we collect data for the Didemnum project. I have been thinking about it this week, and I think we should invest in a light source for the next time we take data. We should be collecting data in conditions similar to what will be present when the radiometer is on the AUV. So this means using the same light source that will be on the AUV. I have mentioned this light to Wayne and still think it would be a good choice to use as our illumination,

http://www.intova.net/products/intova-super-nova/

This is a power full LED light, that is very durable. It rated to 400 feet, although I’m not sure what kind of depth rating we are looking for. The beam angle is quite wide which I don’t see as a problem. Even if the acceptance angle of the radiometer is much smaller than the beam angle I still believe it would work fine. This would help insure that there would be even light coverage in uneven terrain. It would also make the mounting of the light on the AUV more flexible because it covers a wide area. Regardless I think we should purchase this light or another LED light that we can use next time we take samples. This way we have a consistent procedure for collecting the data, instead of using various dive lights. If it was the same light we plan to mount on the AUV that would be even better. Unfortunately we don’t have a waterproof xenon strobe, or a way to sync the strobe to the radiometer (that I know of). If we do want to take that route we will have to make a new plan where we can get some data using a strobe. Pretty much what I’m trying to say is we should keep the light source constant. The DiveSpec uses LEDs, our light on the AUV will be LEDs (I vote LEDs instead of the strobe), so we should use LEDs when we are collecting our data.

Last but not least I have contacted Chris down at DMC to get some information on the Didemnum growth down at DMC. He hasn’t been in around the dock lately but he saw quite a bit at Damariscove Island. He has referred me to Robert Russell at the Dept. of Marine Resources. Apparently he has added Didemnum to a survey of marine life along the coast of Maine. I’m sure he can clue us in on some good spots. That being said, it’s hard to beat the convenience of the dock at DMC and the nearby labs. The DiveSpec is self contained but the radiometer is not. I assume the radiometer can run off a battery, but the question is do we have such a battery? If we want to consider changing locations I will contact Mr. Russell.

That’s all that’s fit to print. Sorry if this was a bit lengthy.