This is an old revision of the document!

Online: Karl, Shaul, Maurizio, Brendan

Agenda:

• Upcoming workshop May 1-3; morning of May 3 will include Systematics section, afternoon of May 3 will be a systematics face to face
• Maurizio: updates on gain stability:
  • Toast Bug: sudden jumps in pointing timeline
  • While Andrea et al try to solve toast bugs, Maurizio is adapting a different sim code just to get an estimate of the dipole calibration. Might be enough.
  • bug in the toast bug report system, Andrea and Ted K are aware of the bug, but no progress in ~ 1month See here for github discussion.
  • Andrea Z and Maurizio to meet in person next week: this is on the agenda for their meeting.
  • Another workaround: perhaps if this bug was introduced by a recent commit, then just revert toast version to non-buggy version.. maybe going back to the CORE version.
  • Maurizio to also check against CORE pointing.
  • Or possibly even just some brute force scripting to correct the problem.
• Karl: GRASP
  • Plots prepped for TeamX, GRASP slides (Karl)
  • Basically ready with a 4pi sidelobe beam: Karl to produce a visualization
    • See plots below. The first 2, with 2 circles per plot, are projected such that the forward 2*pi of the beam is shown in the left-hand plot, theta = 0 at the center, and the right hand plot shows the backward 2*pi, theta = 180 at the center. Note on coordinates: co-pol is the E-field in the xz plane, cross-pol is the E-field in the yz plane. Plots labeled pol X are using a beam from a feedhorn linearly polarized in the xz plane. Those labeled pol Y are from a feedhorn linearly polarized in the yz plane.
    • 
  • Brendan to ping Julian and Jacques about various code availability / sim plans for calculating pickup
• Eric: beam angle
  • What is the noise at low ell? he can assume white noise based on the instrumental sensitivity
  • Table of sims specify knee frequency in time domain, but sims need to be run
  • Angle errors: assumptions can be made that around 0.2 degrees
  • What can you do if you don't try to null EB correlations? How big a problem is it.
  • Check Yadav et al: they argue that S/N of EB correlation from a systematic will always be much larger than S/N on contamination in BB.