> is to start with DK angles whose most-nearly-horizon-aligned value
> is tilted by atan(1/9) = 6.34deg.
We might want to do that as well (for B3). It is unclear to me why we have (at
least sometimes) in the past tried to align the x/y of the detector grid with
horizon/vertical?
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota
Room 318 Physics and Nanotechnology Building
115 Union Street SE, Minneapolis MN 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
I think that plot is evidence that we got the beam correction right to high
accuracy out to high ell.
> In principle this plot is <1 if there is incorrect noise debias, but TT
> is so bright it might not actually be that sensitive.
The noise in TT is not much worse than the noise in EE&BB - it's absolutely
tiny compared to the signal. If we got the noise debias wrong by factor 10
then this test against Planck would likely still pass.
However the ref's concerns are misplaced - we may unfashionably stick to using
auto spectra but noise de-bias misestimation is demonstrably not a major
problem.
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota
Room 318 Physics and Nanotechnology Building
115 Union Street SE, Minneapolis MN 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
Hi Colin,
I think you were there today when we discussed the desire to do finer el steps
for B3 given the smaller beam size. Walt suggested interleaving cycles of
schedules offset by 0.125 deg which seems like a good solution - allows to bin
the data either way and makes for minimal change versus previous practice.
But it then occurred to me that we should do the same for Keck given that we
now have 220GHz receivers whose beam size is very similar to the B3 95GHz
beams.
Looks like we are right now coming to the end of the 2nd cycle of dk angles.
Please remind me what the length of the current sequence is. We should do the
next sequence with 0.125 deg offset in el.
Anyone who objects should chime in - I *think* this makes sense.
Best,
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota
Room 318 Physics and Nanotechnology Building
115 Union Street SE, Minneapolis MN 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
Hi Chris,
> It's a bit harsh
It's not that bad compared to some I have seen.
> or even the cross correlation with our T maps as a funciton of ell with
> the Planck T maps, which is 1 to really really high precision.
Please explain what you mean a bit - not sure I follow.
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota
Room 318 Physics and Nanotechnology Building
115 Union Street SE, Minneapolis MN 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
Hi,
Here is the systematics paper referee report. It's a bit harsh, and it
seems to be written by a former QUIET person. In the end it's positive,
though.
There are three main gripes, which I'll quote:
1. The role and significance of the Jackknife failures
>
I dispute we have jackknife failures.
2. A detailed description of the noise model used in both the determination
> of the
>
auto-spectra and the null tests, in particular the role of correlations in
> the effective noise
>
I think it's a fair criticism that our noise debias uncertaintiy is nowhere
quantitatively invoked. We can include a number for noise debias
uncertainty using high ell scan jack, or even the cross correlation with
our T maps as a funciton of ell with the Planck T maps, which is 1 to
really really high precision. Incorrect noise debias would make this number
less than one.
3. Resolution of the apparent systematic discrepancy between the B2
> auto-spectra and
> the B2/Keck cross-spectra in Figure 9 of the Results Paper
>
Should be easy enough to reference the Keck paper.
I'll get this going in a google doc.
-Chris
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <apj(a)msubmit.net>
Date: Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:39 PM
Subject: Your ApJ Submission MS#ApJ98084
To: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
Cc: apj(a)astro.berkeley.edu
April 9, 2015
Dr. Christopher Daniel Sheehy
Chicago, IL 60637
Title: Bicep2 III: Instrumental Systematics
Dear Dr. Sheehy,
I have received the referee's report on your above submission to The
Astrophysical Journal, and appended it below.
When you resubmit the manuscript, please include a detailed cover letter
containing the (mandatory) listing of the changes you've made to the text
and your responses to the report.
Click the link below to upload your revised manuscript;
http://apj.msubmit.net/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A4Ew2BgI5A2ChrX2J6A9ftdQ5DsXHRL…
Alternatively, you may also log into your account at the EJ Press web site,
http://apj.msubmit.net. Please use your user's login name: chris.d.sheehy.
You can then ask for a new password via the Unknown/Forgotten Password link
if you have forgotten your password.
Reviewers find it helpful if the changes in the text of the manuscript are
easily distinguishable from the rest of the text. Therefore we ask you to
print changes in bold face. The highlighting can be removed easily after
the review.
The Astrophysical Journal has adopted a new policy that manuscript files
become inactive, and are considered to have been withdrawn, six months
after the most recent referee's report goes to the authors, provided a
revised version has not been received by that time.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Chung-Pei Ma
Scientific Editor, The Astrophysical Journal
Professor of Astronomy, UC Berkeley
apj(a)astro.berkeley.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Referee Report
--
**********************************************************************
Christopher Sheehy
KICP Fellow, University of Chicago
5640 S Ellis Ave
LASR 122
Chicago, IL 60637
office: (773) 702-9751
**********************************************************************
