Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
imagerteleconnotes20180516 [2018/05/16 15:24] – wenxx181 | imagerteleconnotes20180516 [2018/05/16 15:49] (current) – wenxx181 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
* Precession Period (Kris) | * Precession Period (Kris) | ||
* Shaul: we've debating whether fast or slow precession; Jacques' | * Shaul: we've debating whether fast or slow precession; Jacques' | ||
- | * high-resolution, | + | * high-resolution, |
- | * 10 hours vs 48 hours | + | * 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, |
- | * | + | * 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, | ||
+ | * 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/ | ||
+ | * 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 | ||
+ | * goal: a standard visual | ||
+ | * needs to clarify things, needs suggestions | ||
+ | |||
+ |