Open Access
6 July 2018 Comparing the theoretical performances of 1.65- and 3.3-μm differential absorption lidar systems used for airborne remote sensing of natural gas leaks (Erratum)
Ashwin Yerasi, William D. Tandy, William J. Emery, Rory A. Barton-Grimley
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
This is an erratum correcting the paper “Comparing the theoretical performances of 1.65- and 3.3-μm differential absorption lidar systems used for airborne remote sensing of natural gas leaks.”

This article [J. Appl. Remote Sens. 12(2), 026030 (2018)] contained a typographical error when it was published June 22, 2018. Two numbers in the following sentence in the abstract were transposed:

“The noise floors of the 1.65- and 3.3-μm instruments simulated in this particular analysis are 0.1 and 1.4  ppmm, respectively.”

The corrected sentence reads:

“The noise floors of the 1.65- and 3.3-μm instruments simulated in this particular analysis are 1.4 and 0.1  ppmm, respectively.”

All online versions of the article were corrected on 3 June 2018.

© 2018 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)
Ashwin Yerasi, William D. Tandy, William J. Emery, and Rory A. Barton-Grimley "Comparing the theoretical performances of 1.65- and 3.3-μm differential absorption lidar systems used for airborne remote sensing of natural gas leaks (Erratum)," Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 12(2), 029901 (6 July 2018). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.12.029901
Published: 6 July 2018
Lens.org Logo
CITATIONS
Cited by 3 scholarly publications.
Advertisement
Advertisement
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission  Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace
KEYWORDS
Absorption

Airborne remote sensing

LIDAR

Device simulation

Aerospace engineering

Computer simulations

Back to Top