Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| imagerteleconnotes20180314 [2018/03/22 08:41] – wenxx181 | imagerteleconnotes20180314 [2018/03/23 13:25] (current) – wenxx181 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| * Based on ‘Planck HFI Core Team’ et al. 2011 | * Based on ‘Planck HFI Core Team’ et al. 2011 | ||
| * CPV = “6 weeks before first survey” | * CPV = “6 weeks before first survey” | ||
| - | * | + | * Last two weeks of data have been included into the “1st survey data” |
| + | * Slide3, Planck CPV | ||
| + | * Slide4, PICO; Shaul only spent a few minutes; we can and probably should add more items | ||
| + | * Cosmic rays | ||
| + | * "What would change given the possible measurements during CPV?"" | ||
| + | * Temperature Stability | ||
| + | * Roger and Shaul are communicating; | ||
| + | * Roger | ||
| + | * T stability of focal plane | ||
| + | * ADR, thus we should not assume same stability as Planck. | ||
| + | * The concern is that the real numbers we use | ||
| + | * Loop gain = 1000 from thesis, very high, Roger think L~10 is more reasonable. | ||
| + | * Alpha is also too large by a factor of 10 or more. | ||
| + | * Toki agrees with Roger. Alpha is about ~100. | ||
| + | * For LiteBird, super relaxed, requirement For T stability is very low. | ||
| + | * Shaul: LiteBird no ADR, we don’t know what it should be for continuous ADR. | ||
| + | * Roger: 1%Single ADR would heat the focal plane. | ||
| + | * Shaul: timescale matters. We can calibrate on dipole. If the fluctuation is fast, then it’s problematic. On spin-spin basis (~1min), we would have dipole calibration. Timescale is unknown for CADR. | ||
| + | * LiteBird: single shot, not ADR. ADR had been discussed. **Toki is going to dig out more information.** | ||
| + | * Shaul: we will get information from Toki aobut LiteBird. | ||
| + | * Roger: by next week, If we have a figure from Toki on requirement, | ||
| + | * Roger: if you cycle ADR, before next cycle, you can do calibration. | ||
| + | * Amy: on one hand, amount of requirement on changing responsivity and time scales; use calculation to infer Bath stability and timescale; we don’t need to go into too much details at this stage. More importantly, | ||
| + | * Shaul: have no idea wether this is an issue or not; we don’t know ADR, fluctuation and timescale. Goddard may care cost, then they give us amplitude and timescale. Shaul will follow up. | ||
| + | * “Common modes”, If the two polarization go down and up together. | ||
| + | * Shaul will write to Tom, and with information Toki will proved, we will see what we need. | ||
| + | * Kris: since this is a study, other techonologies could be mentioned. | ||
| + | * Shaul: we will say there are emerging technolgy that may end being competative. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Focal Plane Status(Karl) | ||
| + | * Slide2: nominal focal plane | ||
| + | * Slide3: along the scan direction | ||
| + | * Questions: 1) slight wider, looks more wasted space; 2)Center: pink is high-frequency, | ||
| + | * Slide4: two cases comparison. | ||
| + | * Amy: either should be fine. | ||
| + | * Slide5: bump bond; stack multiple TDM chips below wafer. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * GRASP: | ||
| + | * Shaul: we understand now, working on slides. | ||
| - | * | ||