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

User Tools

Trace: • 2018-10-08
systematicswg:telecons:2018-06-18:start

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
systematicswg:telecons:2018-06-18:start [2018/06/18 11:13] – bcrillsystematicswg:telecons:2018-06-18:start [2018/06/18 12:02] (current) – bcrill
Line 5: Line 5:
      * Do we have simulated main beams? Eric wants to take a look at the cross-polar beam.        * Do we have simulated main beams? Eric wants to take a look at the cross-polar beam.  
      * Eric recently learned that in Litebird, the peak of the U beam for GRASP sims of the main beams is something like 10% of the peak of the I beam map.  This is much larger than simulations for Planck HFI and LFI (which was < 1% peak) and was thus determined to not be a problem.  Being very far off-axis might be the issue.      * Eric recently learned that in Litebird, the peak of the U beam for GRASP sims of the main beams is something like 10% of the peak of the I beam map.  This is much larger than simulations for Planck HFI and LFI (which was < 1% peak) and was thus determined to not be a problem.  Being very far off-axis might be the issue.
-     * Can we find a main lobe GRASP simulation?+     * There are two effects: 1. Calibration will correct any "constant" effect. so how accurately do we need to calibrate? 2.  to what effect I/Q/U beams maps are the same.  
 +     * Can we find a main lobe GRASP simulation for PICO that we can look at?  Eric can determine whether the cross-polar response can be corrected by a simple calibration factor.  If it's a simple rotation, then no problem.  But if there are extra terms, then we might need to have a different approach. 
 +     * action to Eric: to describe this in more detail next week (building on his previous post). 
 +     * action to Shaul: talk to Karl to look at main beam GRASP sim for two orthogonal detectors. 
 +     * Maurizio worked with Andrea.  Andrea using PICO as a test case for some "large focal plane" development for toast. 
 +     * Maps are available for 2 year simulation requested by Kris: /scratch1/scratchdirs/tomasi/PICO_simulations/pico_4detectors_2yrs.fits input map is /global/cscratch1/sd/zonca/pico/cal_sims/pico_cmb_nodip.fits 
 +     * Andrea was able to patch toast to bring in dacapo input. Allows gain estimation sims: 1. a map of the full sky reconstructed over 2 years and 4 detectors, 2. gain factors vs. time, and 3. a map that has the effects of residual gain errors. 
 +     * Maurizio can use these products to compute angular power spectra and show the science impact of the residual gain errors.  He will do this in the next few days.
   * Systematics section outline   * Systematics section outline
 +     * Shaul wants to have a draft PICO report by September 1.  The real one will be submitted to NASA in December
 +     * Write a systematics paper? Is there anything particularly new in the PICO material?
 +       * ideas for Maurizio's scheme was somewhat explained in the CORE systematics paper.  Some new elements regarding the end-to-end. 
 +       * Eric's particular work is mostly a specific application of previous methods. 
 +       * PICO has a different scanning strategy from Litebird and CORE.
 +       * Sidelobe pickup given the telescope is interesting: this is one that has never been used for a CMB project. 
 +       * Brendan to make an outline for paper.
 +     * Note: Brendan to be on vacation for 2 weeks. will be back for July 9 telecon.  
 +     * Eric will be gone Late July - early August.
 +  
 +
systematicswg/telecons/2018-06-18/start.1529338438.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/06/18 11:13 by bcrill

Page Tools