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

User Tools

Trace:
imagerteleconnotes20180516

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
imagerteleconnotes20180516 [2018/05/16 12:39] – hananyimagerteleconnotes20180516 [2018/05/16 15:49] (current) – wenxx181
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Telecon 20180516 ====== ====== Telecon 20180516 ======
  
-Attending: +Attending: Brian, Tom, Kris, Hannes, Jacque, Shaul, Karl, Qi,  
  
 Notes by : Qi Notes by : Qi
Line 8: Line 9:
  
   * Precession Period (Kris, Jacques)   * Precession Period (Kris, Jacques)
-    * [[systematicswg:telecons:2018-05-14:orth_nobs_tprec10hrs_190_days.png]]+    * 10 hour precession period: {{:systematicswg:telecons:2018-05-14:orth_nobs_tprec10hrs_190_days.png?25|}}  
 +    * 48 hour precession period: {{:systematicswg:telecons:2018-05-14:orth_nobs_tprec48hrs_190_days.png?25|}} 
 +    * {{::nobs_maps.pdf|More Slides}} 
 +  *  {{::sensitivity_vs_frequency_20180516.pdf|Noise/Bands Figure}} 
 +  * Noise Requirements vs Best Case Estimate (BCE) 
 +    * Proposal: Req = BCE*rt(2)/0.9, independent of frequency 
 +    * rt(2) because "Planck achieved noise within ~20% of BCE" (to be checked)  
 +    * 0.9 because the cost models assume 90% yield 
 +    * first factor is applied on individual detectors, second factor on the array.  
 + 
 +===Notes=== 
 +  * Precession Period (Kris) 
 +    * Shaul: we've debating whether fast or slow precession; Jacques's argument was too fast precessions give large gaps 
 +    * high-resolution, 1.6 arcmin simulations, single detector 
 +    * 10 hours vs 48 hours; 2,4,5,..., 365 days of scanning 
 +    * blue (or gray on right side) is either 0 or just a few hits; yellow is a few hundred 
 +    * short-time plots show difference, but long-time show less difference 
 +    * Kris argues that either option is good at some locations; we need to specify science goals before we really answer this question. Also, since we are using action-wheels, we can fairly easily adjust precession in space. This is different from Planck. Planck did have some big gaps. 
 +    * Jacque argues that we need to compare gap size with beam size. 48 hours comes from CORE study, which has 2-min spin rate and 96-hour precession. 
 +    * conclusion: the report should probably say “there are a range of considerations, for either 10 or 48 hours” 
 +    * Shaul: the fly-wheel will be able to do the change of precession; slow-motion can also be done. 
 + 
 +  * Noise Requirements vs Best Case Estimate (BCE) 
 +    * Best case estimate: not everything is most optimistic, just reasonable. 
 +    * Shaul proposed BEC/sqrt(2)*0.9 
 +      * root 2 is coming from Planck, which had achieved within 20% BCE. 
 +      * 0.9 is 90% yield of pixels; BCE is optimistic on 100%-yield assumption 
 +      * This number is for feedback loop to science teams. 
 +      * Jacques: CORE did something similar, no major impacts on science 
   * Noise/Bands Figure   * Noise/Bands Figure
-  * Noise Requirements vs Best Case Estimate+    * goal: a standard visual 
 +    * needs to clarify things, needs suggestions 
 + 
 + 
imagerteleconnotes20180516.1526492373.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/05/16 12:39 by hanany

Page Tools