Link to main foregrounds telecons page
Link to logbook

Attendance: Shaul, Jacques, Julien, Sebastian, Kris, Charles

Regrets:

• Delensing
• Paper
• Tech gap
• Commander update
• NILC - smaller sky area

* Julien + Sebastian: Clem produced maps but foreground information drops at \ell=1500. For S4 power does not drop for some models. **Shaul will check with Clem**. 
  * JD: PySM is an nside=512 which gives \ell = 1500. They are working on increasing nside but it isn't ready yet. PSM maps have information going to \ell=5000. 
  * SH: do we need information at high \ell? JD shows spectra of dust maps between 40-220 GHz that show power to high \ell
  * Julien: S4 needed only minimal separation using the central frequency bands. This is not an issue for a small clean patch, but may be an issue for 50% of the sky
  * Kris: what about point sources? 
  * JD: for CORE we have done cleaning at nside=2048. 

• SH show proposal for paper figures. See below. Need to communicate with MR.
• Paper: Proposal for NILC Figures
  • Start with r=0.003
    • one (90.91) showing 10 sims including cyan, green red.
    • One (90.91) with the average
    • one (90.91) with likelihood
    • (all the rest in an appendix)
    • 90.98 with average
    • 90.98 likelihood
  • r=0
    • same as above

• Charles gives outline for gap list paper (see below). SH: there is a specific form that needs to be filled. We need to highlight urgency, such as 'critical', or 'mission enhancing'. Perhaps 10-20 GHz would be 'mission enhancing'; do we know we can call it critical?

Hi Shaul & Co.:

As promised, here's a draft outline of the case for broadening the frequency range of the tech gap list on CMB detectors.

1. Intro

  statement of what we're writing about.  Overview or argument.  Context of space CMB mission science requirements.

2. high frequency (now 600, we'll argue to raise to 800)

  results of simulations, showing the improvement in CMB extraction with the addition of frequencies between 600 and 800 GHz
  at least one figure.  What's the best one to use?

3. low frequency (now 30, we'll argue to lower to 10)

  "practical" argument from Oslo about SNR and real estate
  if we have any simulation results that seem relevant, we'll use them, otherwise say that we don't yet.

4. summary

Charles