Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
Probe Mission Study Wiki

User Tools


imagerteleconnotes20180206

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
imagerteleconnotes20180206 [2018/02/07 13:47] hananyimagerteleconnotes20180206 [2018/02/07 15:54] (current) wenxx181
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Telecon 20180206 ====== ====== Telecon 20180206 ======
  
-Attending: +Attending: Brian, Roger, Jacques, Julian, Tom, Toki, Kris, Hannes, Shaul, Karl, Qi
  
 Notes by : Karl/Qi \\ Notes by : Karl/Qi \\
Line 15: Line 15:
      
 === Notes === === Notes ===
 +
 +Focal Plane Configuration
 +
 +  * Orientation of scan VS orientation of detector rows
 +     * Kris repeated the concern again from last week; with the hexagone wafers and current scan strategy, is it important to align rows of detectors with direction of scan?
 +     * multiple detectors on a row can scan over the same track if they are aligned with direction of scan
 +     * Shaul pointed out that even now there are detectors are one row, every other column though
 +     * It's not very clear if this matters
 +     * Spin rate is dominant over precession, so scan direction is about straight from left to right as shown
 +     * Shaul: each pixel has both polarizations; we want Q and U pairs, thus the word "detector" may be misleading here
 +     * Jacques: arrangement of focal plane, cross scan sampling; shaul: we will take look into Jaques's paper about cross scan sampling in terms of spin, precession etc.
 +     * Kris: faster precession, if compare 10 days to 10 hrs, gives better sky map coverage; however, if compare 10 hrs to 2 hrs, not sure if it makes a big difference
 +     * Jacques: holes on sky map will affect systematics over the focal plane
 +     * Shaul: fundamental questions have not be addressed, Q and U layout has not been done
 +     * Q and U alignment is flexible within wafer
 +
 +
 +  * ADR
 +    *shaul: current model has a tank next to focal plane for ADR, but it does not need to be there there
 +    *Tom: PIPER ADR
 +      *continuous ADR, 4 stages
 +      *stage 1, attached to brown color plate, which attach the focal plane 
 +      *about 9'' by 8'' by 3''
 +      *For PICO, one more intermediate stage, stable temperature; every 6 days, one extra ADR stage; so 5 stages in arrangement, slight larger than PIPER's
 +      *0.1 K fluctuates between magging and demagging; Tom will look into it how large the fluctuation is for next week
 +
 +
 +  * Focal Plane
 +    * change: 1)central wafer, split into three: F and GHI;2) 4mm space between edges of wafers based on different experiments (4.2mm for EBEX, 4-5mm for POLARBEAR, 5.5mm for BICEP)
 +    * Shaul: let's make space to 5mm
 +    * less F detectors, more GHI, same numbers for others
 +    * wire bonding
 +      * traditional: edge of wafer, constrains # you can bond; for F G H I, not enough space
 +      * "bump-bonding", instead of the edge, you can wire bond the entire wafer, needed for GHI
 +    * readout
 +      * for TDM, 4 mm^2; for FDM, mainly due to large capacitors, 50-80 mm^2
 +      * FGHI need some special packing, working on
 +
 +  * sizes of mirrors
 +    * we need to increase mirror sizes if we want to use more diffraction limited field of view
 +    * dimensions are shown in the slides
 +
 +Cosmic Rays
 +  *Roger: signals long-time constant spikes
 +  *TES for X-rays, they do not see it as a driven issue; worth looking into it
 +
 +
imagerteleconnotes20180206.1518032835.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/02/07 13:47 by hanany