Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| private:teleconsnotes20170802 [2017/08/02 15:04] – jbock | private:teleconsnotes20170802 [2017/08/02 16:12] (current) – jbock | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Telecon Notes 20170802 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes 20170802 ====== | ||
| - | Attendance: | + | Attendance: Al, Julian, Jamie, |
| Notes by: Jamie\\ | Notes by: Jamie\\ | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| - Science + Complementarity (Shaul waiting for reply from Carlstrom; Clem said he would raise the question about a common workshop during an S4 SOC telecon on Monday. Perhaps Clem can report on the discussion. SH also waiting for response from SOC regarding a brief Probe presentation at Harvard.) | - Science + Complementarity (Shaul waiting for reply from Carlstrom; Clem said he would raise the question about a common workshop during an S4 SOC telecon on Monday. Perhaps Clem can report on the discussion. SH also waiting for response from SOC regarding a brief Probe presentation at Harvard.) | ||
| + | |||
| ** * Name for the Probe** | ** * Name for the Probe** | ||
| - Below is a draft e-mail soliciting suggestions from the community. Suggested process: people offer suggestions, | - Below is a draft e-mail soliciting suggestions from the community. Suggested process: people offer suggestions, | ||
| Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
| ** * Update on Data Challenge (Julian or Raphael, Lloyd unavailable)** | ** * Update on Data Challenge (Julian or Raphael, Lloyd unavailable)** | ||
| + | |||
| ** * Update from the Technology WG** | ** * Update from the Technology WG** | ||
| - General discussion: how do we ensure that technologies that are not in the baseline Probe get proper mention and boost in the report. The long term goal is to ensure technology development support. Examples are KIDs, the ' | - General discussion: how do we ensure that technologies that are not in the baseline Probe get proper mention and boost in the report. The long term goal is to ensure technology development support. Examples are KIDs, the ' | ||
| Line 31: | Line 33: | ||
| === Notes === | === Notes === | ||
| - | Jamie credited with writing notes back in June\\ | + | Raphael hasn't called |
| - | Action items from last week:\\ | + | Clem brought up the subject of a joint workshop with S4, response was not overwhelming\\ |
| - | - contact Kovac about a probe talk at Harvard S4 workshop (Shaul called)\\ | + | This was in reaction to an approximately equal split in time over a 3-day period\\ |
| - | - communicate with John Carlstrom to share resources with S4 (reply pending)\\ | + | Perhaps one could have the probe go first\\ |
| - | Primary work on spectrometer has been on foregrounds\\ | + | Has there been any discussion about using S4 tools for the probe?\\ |
| - | Spectrometer has shallow sensitivity up to several THz\\ | + | There certainly seems like there is overlap in certain areas, e.g. foregrounds, analysis machinery\\ |
| - | May offer some useful information for deep imager data over narrower range of frequencies\\ | + | S4 people did think a coordinated approach |
| - | What is the utility of high-frequency | + | No reply yet on the request to have a presentation at the Harvard meeting\\ |
| - | The spectrometer will provide good information on dust opacity | + | |
| - | It is less clear if this knowledge will prove useful at nK sensitivities\\ | + | No suggestions about probe naming plan put forward\\ |
| - | Can the effect of decorrelation | + | |
| - | Shaul: | + | Update from the data challenge (Julian)\\ |
| - | Charles: we can't assume we will know the spectral properties of the dust\\ | + | Mission observation applies to a sky model in selected beams and band passes\\ |
| - | Question is does the spectrometer provide essential information for foreground removal?\\ | + | The initial sky model is PISM2\\ |
| - | Jamie: | + | Output maps will be available tomorrow |
| - | Jamie: | + | Described as a " |
| - | Al: Probably not, but I can quantify especially in combination | + | Teams of analysts were solicited by Lloyd, we should find out who has signed up. Lots in Europe presumably\\ |
| - | Can we get a picture of MIDEX/PIXIE to get some idea of physical size?\\ | + | Clem: |
| + | Yes, though there are differences and limitations from what these groups have done\\ | ||
| + | For example CORE++ has moved beyond PISM, machinery already exists\\ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Update from the Technology WG:\\ | ||
| + | Jeff and Roger have been working on a detector technology plan for team-X\\ | ||
| + | Getting some input from LTD, baselining TES+TDM SQUIDS for the probe\\ | ||
| + | Then we would outline what the CMB community has done, and diverse future improvements\\ | ||
| + | Optical coupling can be left open, highlighting diversity | ||
| + | Plan to circulate | ||
| + | Jamie: | ||
| + | We should be concerned that the probe study is for a mission | ||
| + | Therefore it could fall out of long-term technology funding, and we should anticipate writing a technology white paper to justify continued investment\\ | ||
| + | High-frequency channels | ||
| + | The other questions from Shaul can be addressed in the Imager telecon\\ | ||
| - | Systematics working group has been collected, reviewing existing tools and knowledge.\\ | ||
| - | Has gotten input from Colin Bischoff on S4 work.\\ | ||
| - | Also a presentation from CORE.\\ | ||