Hi everyone,
I've got a new posting in which you can see the GOES turn-on during
C, F, and I phases of CMB data as well. It's weaker than in the
galactic data where we point directly at the ground station, but still
significant in some channels.
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130913_satcom…
- Walt
> I'm pretty convinced based on the incredible
> alignment with the same scansets / same LST across three years.
It is indeed impressive. How does one explain the two cases where the signal
turns on at the time it usually turns off? I just checked these two scansets
and they look normal as regards time of day.
> That's right. The G phase lines up in time with the end of the GOES
> pass, just as the D phase does. We're looking in a different direction
> in az, though.
OK - there is apparently some G galb data also but it says "through March
2010" so presumably not much.
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
Hi Walt,
This is an awesome post. I think you are right that the only az fixed signal
source which operates on sidereal time must be the satellite ground station.
- Do we normally do ground subtraction in our galactic maps? (Although as you
note this would not save us for CMB maps if the source turns on/off during a
scanset - making it no longer really ground fixed.)
- Is your link to GOES simply the observation that a single recent Keck D2
scanset coincided with the end of the GOES pass? (I don't know how fast the
orbits of the satellites evolve - presumably pretty slowly.)
- The pair in the "pair diff wobble" posting is actually a different one?
- "then taken only the p20 part (i.e. using p20" - I think you mean p2?
- "I've only found one example with a clear turn-on [sch 180]." - how about
182?
I note that in Jamie T's az maps there is a big lump in Q around az=220 -
although I expect this is unrelated.
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
I note that the G phase is currently excluded from the az jack of CMB data...
(it's BEH vs CFI)
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
I investigate the stripes in per-detector galactic maps from
[20130909_gal_polrot_1]. These turn out to be related to a reducplots
feature that I also studied in [20130909_gal_polrot_1], where scansets
D01, 02, 03 see a pair-diff signal that's absent in all other scansets.
I can explain this signal as a pickup of satellite communications
traffic when we're pointed toward the ground station during GOES
passes. The CMB scansets don't seem to be similarly affected, but there
could be contamination at a lower level.
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130913_satcom/
- Walt
I have added the plots of spectra and difference spectra using normal estimator (as opposed to pureB) to the end of the post from last week:
http://bicep.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130904_b2keck_…
Spectra have somewhat bigger error bars for pureB (although for dp1111 the difference is not that big). However difference spectra look similar.
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
Hi Chin-Lin,
Just to follow up, I would like to know what parameters are in the noiseless
bm case which is causing the bulk of the high ell power, e.g. Fig. 2 in this
post
http://bicep.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130819_composit
ebm/
It is probably stated somewhere but went back about 5 posts but couldn't
find a description. Has it got only the terms used in the deprojection, or
are there additional terms like ellipticity?
Jamie
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Caltech (MTTh) JPL (WF)
M/S 367-17 M/S 169-327
California Inst. of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA 91125 Pasadena, CA 91109
Voice: (626)-395-2017 (818)-354-0715
Fax: (626)-395-2366 (818)-354-8895
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> what parameters are in the noiseless bm case which is causing the bulk
> of the high ell power
It could just be numerical precision and griding artifacts - at ell=600 we
have multiplied the raw modes coming out of the fft by >10^6 wrt ell=1.
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
Hi All,
I have a first posting on this topic in:
http://bicep.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130910_conv_1/
Ups! I missed the submission deadline...I know. I prefer to leave time to
take a look at it, and to the forthcoming ones.
Sergi
--
Dr Sergi Hildebrandt Rafels
Jet Propulsion Laboratory ---------------- California Institute of
Technology
169-217 Cahill-383
4800 Oak Grove Drive 1200, E. California Bvd
Pasadena, CA, 91109 Pasadena, CA, 91125
MC/169-237 MC/367-17
1-818-354-0220 1-626-395-2147
Hi
I've put up a posting detailing a first stab at incorporating relgain
mismatch into the beam map sims. I show the BB spectra for the sims with
and without relgain mismatch, and an attempt to figure out if this relgain
mismatch I've inserted is the right one to use.
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130909_composi…
Chin Lin
