31 May
2013
31 May
'13
11:34 a.m.
I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
The talk time is 35 minutes.
Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for comment:
Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want something
to underscore the importance of inflation B-mode experiments after Planck,
but this may be too controversial. What do you think?
Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
I think the map-making is mature enough to show, but this is a map we
haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show it, I don't
mind reverting to a previous analysis that has been shown before.
For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map depth/weighting scheme [
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…
]
Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like to,
especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement we get
from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now is for Keck from a recent
posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I could find was from
early 2012 for the 0304 simset.
Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public before,
but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the matrix-based
analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here, but I
can't find one that's public. From the main beams final report, I think
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I pick a map from there as an
example to show?
Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes since it's
something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we don't have a
guaranteed solution although there's good evidence for believing the new
baffles will work.
Immanuel Buder
Postdoctoral Fellow
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
(office) 617 495 7567
(office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
(mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
Cambridge, MA 02138
ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
31 May
31 May
4:48 p.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hi Immanuel,
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but it
should probably be emphasized that it's for the mid-term future, not the
near-term. Also, on slide 18, you cite "analysis improvements" for BICEP2.
I don't know if that's correct. We might improve a few things (Kirit's
estimator, for example) but for the most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is
doing all the improvements and BICEP2 is just going to take advantage of
them.
Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
collaboration meeting. I don't think they've
been shown in public before,
but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the matrix-based
analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles before? It's
not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
-Chris
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>wrote;wrote:
> I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
> The talk time is 35 minutes.
> Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for comment:
>
> Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want something
> to underscore the importance of inflation B-mode experiments after Planck,
> but this may be too controversial. What do you think?
>
> Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
>
> Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
> I think the map-making is mature enough to show, but this is a map we
> haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show it, I
don't
> mind reverting to a previous analysis that has been shown before.
> For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map depth/weighting scheme
> [
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…
> ]
>
> Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like to,
> especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
>
> Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement we get
> from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now is for Keck from a recent
> posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I could find was from
> early 2012 for the 0304 simset.
>
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
collaboration meeting. I don't think they've
been shown in public before,
but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the matrix-based
analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
>
> Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here, but I
> can't find one that's public. From the main beams final report, I think
> http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I pick a map from there as an
> example to show?
>
> Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes since
> it's something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we
don't
> have a guaranteed solution although there's good evidence for believing the
> new baffles will work.
>
>
>
> Immanuel Buder
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> (office) 617 495 7567
> (office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
> (mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> KeckArray mailing list
> KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
>
>
--
**********************************************************************
Christopher Sheehy - Ph.D. candidate - University of Chicago
Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, Department of Physics
Room 220 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-625-1802 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
**********************************************************************
6:18 p.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
BICEP-2 dipoles were shown publicly at the 2010 SPIE; I don't recall if
we've done this for Keck. I've shown far-field SPIDER dipoles publicly
and then explained that they are similar in nature to those from Keck. I
presented those with the 2-d histogram of centroid offsets on pg 28, which
was actually measured from SPIDER prototype tiles in the Hienostat.
Roger
Hi Immanuel,
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but it
should probably be emphasized that it's for the mid-term future, not the
near-term. Also, on slide 18, you cite "analysis improvements" for BICEP2.
I don't know if that's correct. We might improve a few things (Kirit's
estimator, for example) but for the most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is
doing all the improvements and BICEP2 is just going to take advantage of
them.
Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
collaboration meeting. I don't think
they've been shown in public
before,
but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the
matrix-based
analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles before? It's
not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
-Chris
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Immanuel Buder
<ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>wrote;wrote:
> I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
> The talk time is 35 minutes.
> Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for
> comment:
>
> Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want
> something
> to underscore the importance of inflation B-mode experiments after
> Planck,
> but this may be too controversial. What do you think?
>
> Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
>
> Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
> I think the map-making is mature enough to show, but this is a map we
> haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show it, I
> don't
> mind reverting to a previous analysis that has been shown before.
> For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map depth/weighting
> scheme
> [
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…
> ]
>
> Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like to,
> especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
>
> Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement we
> get
> from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now is for Keck from a recent
> posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I could find was from
> early 2012 for the 0304 simset.
>
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
collaboration meeting. I don't think
they've been shown in public
before,
but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the
matrix-based
analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
>
> Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here, but I
> can't find one that's public. From the main beams final report, I think
>
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
> the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I pick a map from there as an
> example to show?
>
> Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes since
> it's something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we
don't
> have a guaranteed solution although there's good evidence for believing
> the
> new baffles will work.
>
>
>
> Immanuel Buder
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> (office) 617 495 7567
> (office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
> (mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> KeckArray mailing list
> KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
>
>
--
**********************************************************************
Christopher Sheehy - Ph.D. candidate - University of Chicago
Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, Department of Physics
Room 220 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-625-1802 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
KeckArray mailing list
KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
7:15 p.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Chris
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for
the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but
it should probably be emphasized that it's for the mid-term future,
not the near-term
Thanks, I'll make that more clear.
We might improve a few things (Kirit's estimator,
for example) but for
the most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is doing all the improvements
and BICEP2 is just going to take advantage of them.
The improvements I'm going
to talk about in this section are above and
beyond BICEP1 3-yr. I thought pureB was a major improvement that won't
be used in B1. I'll make clear that the BICEP1 3-yr improvements all
carry over to B2 and Keck.
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of
our dipoles before?
It's not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
We have shown near-field
difference maps before. I thought we had shown
far-field maps too, but I can't find one in any previous talk.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:48:57 -0500
From: Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu>
To: Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
Cc: BICEP BICEP <bicep(a)astro.caltech.edu>du>, bicep2-list
<bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>du>, Keckarray
<keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
> Hi Immanuel,
>
> We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
> paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but
> it should probably be emphasized that it's for the mid-term future,
> not the near-term. Also, on slide 18, you cite "analysis improvements"
> for BICEP2. I don't know if that's correct. We might improve a few
> things (Kirit's estimator, for example) but for the most part I think
> that BICEP1 3-yr is doing all the improvements and BICEP2 is just
> going to take advantage of them.
>
>
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
> collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public
> before, but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of
> the matrix-based analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially,
> do you agree?
>
>
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of
our dipoles before?
It's not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
>
> -Chris
>
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Immanuel Buder
> <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:ibuder@cfa.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>
> I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
> <http://bmode.caltech.edu/%7Espuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf>
> The talk time is 35 minutes.
> Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for
> comment:
>
> Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want
> something to underscore the importance of inflation B-mode
> experiments after Planck, but this may be too controversial. What
> do you think?
>
> Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
>
> Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
>
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
>
<http://bmode.caltech.edu/%7Espuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr_maps/>
> I think the map-making is mature enough to show, but this is a map
> we haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show
> it, I don't mind reverting to a previous analysis that has been
> shown before.
> For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map
> depth/weighting scheme
> [http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…
>
<http://bmode.caltech.edu/%7Espuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_depth/>]
>
> Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd
> like to, especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
>
> Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement
> we get from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now is for Keck
> from a recent posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I
> could find was from early 2012 for the 0304 simset.
>
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
> collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public
> before, but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of
> the matrix-based analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially,
> do you agree?
>
> Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here,
> but I can't find one that's public. From the main beams final
> report, I think
>
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
>
<http://bicep0.caltech.edu/%7Espuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_source/>
> has the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I pick a map from there
> as an example to show?
>
> Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes
> since it's something I've been working on, but I realize it's new
> and we don't have a guaranteed solution although there's good
> evidence for believing the new baffles will work.
>
>
>
> Immanuel Buder
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> (office) 617 495 7567
> (office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
> (mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:ibuder@cfa.harvard.edu>
>
> _______________________________________________
> KeckArray mailing list
> KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu <mailto:KeckArray@lists.stanford.edu>
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
>
>
>
>
> --
> **********************************************************************
> Christopher Sheehy - Ph.D. candidate - University of Chicago
> Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, Department of Physics
> Room 220 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
> Tel: 612-625-1802 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
> <mailto:csheehy@uchicago.edu>
> **********************************************************************
10:22 p.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
I've definitely shown Keck far field beam maps with the dipole in them.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>wrote;wrote:
Chris
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but it
should probably be emphasized that it's for the mid-term future, not the
near-term
Thanks, I'll make that more clear.
We might improve a few things (Kirit's estimator, for example) but for the
most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is doing all the improvements and BICEP2
is just going to take advantage of them.
The improvements I'm going to talk about in this section are above and
beyond BICEP1 3-yr. I thought pureB was a major improvement that won't be
used in B1. I'll make clear that the BICEP1 3-yr improvements all carry
over to B2 and Keck.
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles before?
It's not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
We have shown near-field difference maps before. I thought we had shown
far-field maps too, but I can't find one in any previous talk.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:48:57 -0500
From: Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu> <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu>
To: Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu> <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
Cc: BICEP BICEP <bicep(a)astro.caltech.edu> <bicep(a)astro.caltech.edu>du>,
bicep2-list
<bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu><bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu>,
Keckarray <keckarray@mailman.stanford.edu><keckarray@mailman.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hi Immanuel,
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but it
should probably be emphasized that it's for the mid-term future, not the
near-term. Also, on slide 18, you cite "analysis improvements" for BICEP2.
I don't know if that's correct. We might improve a few things (Kirit's
estimator, for example) but for the most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is
doing all the improvements and BICEP2 is just going to take advantage of
them.
Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
collaboration meeting. I don't think
they've been shown in public before,
but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the matrix-based
analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles before?
It's not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
-Chris
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>wrote;wrote:
> I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
> The talk time is 35 minutes.
> Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for comment:
>
> Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want
> something to underscore the importance of inflation B-mode experiments
> after Planck, but this may be too controversial. What do you think?
>
> Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
>
> Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
> I think the map-making is mature enough to show, but this is a map we
> haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show it, I
don't
> mind reverting to a previous analysis that has been shown before.
> For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map depth/weighting
> scheme [
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…
> ]
>
> Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like
> to, especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
>
> Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement we
> get from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now is for Keck from a recent
> posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I could find was from
> early 2012 for the 0304 simset.
>
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
collaboration meeting. I don't think
they've been shown in public before,
but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the matrix-based
analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
>
> Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here, but I
> can't find one that's public. From the main beams final report, I think
> http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I pick a map from there as an
> example to show?
>
> Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes since
> it's something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we
don't
> have a guaranteed solution although there's good evidence for believing the
> new baffles will work.
>
>
>
> Immanuel Buder
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> (office) 617 495 7567
> (office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
> (mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> KeckArray mailing list
> KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
>
>
--
**********************************************************************
Christopher Sheehy - Ph.D. candidate - University of Chicago
Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, Department of Physics
Room 220 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-625-1802 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
1 Jun
1 Jun
11:18 a.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
hi Immanuel, Chris,
B2/Keck analysis will also be the first time that beam systematics
deprojection is used in its full glory (we only used relgain
deprojection in the B1 analysis).
Going along with Chin Lin's email, I'm sure that we have been up front
in previous talks about far field A/B offsets. So if we told people
about them back when they were pretty bad, we should *definitely* tell
people about them now that we have both analysis mitigation and
improved hardware!
-colin
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
Chris
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but it
should probably be emphasized that it's for the mid-term future, not the
near-term
Thanks, I'll make that more clear.
We might improve a few things (Kirit's estimator, for example) but for the
most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is doing all the improvements and BICEP2
is just going to take advantage of them.
The improvements I'm going to talk about in this section are above and
beyond BICEP1 3-yr. I thought pureB was a major improvement that won't be
used in B1. I'll make clear that the BICEP1 3-yr improvements all carry over
to B2 and Keck.
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles before? It's
not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
We have shown near-field difference maps before. I thought we had shown
far-field maps too, but I can't find one in any previous talk.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:48:57 -0500
From: Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu>
To: Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
Cc: BICEP BICEP <bicep(a)astro.caltech.edu>du>, bicep2-list
<bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>du>, Keckarray
<keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hi Immanuel,
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but it
should probably be emphasized that it's for the mid-term future, not the
near-term. Also, on slide 18, you cite "analysis improvements" for BICEP2. I
don't know if that's correct. We might improve a few things (Kirit's
estimator, for example) but for the most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is
doing all the improvements and BICEP2 is just going to take advantage of
them.
Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's
presentation at the
collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public before,
but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the matrix-based
analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles before? It's
not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
-Chris
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
wrote:
>
> I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
> The talk time is 35 minutes.
> Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for comment:
>
> Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want something
> to underscore the importance of inflation B-mode experiments after Planck,
> but this may be too controversial. What do you think?
>
> Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
>
> Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
> I think the map-making is mature enough to show, but this is a map we
> haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show it, I
don't
> mind reverting to a previous analysis that has been shown before.
> For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map depth/weighting scheme
> [http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…]
>
> Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like to,
> especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
>
> Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement we get
> from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now is for Keck from a recent
> posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I could find was from early
> 2012 for the 0304 simset.
>
Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's
presentation at the
collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public before,
but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the matrix-based
analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
>
> Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here, but I
> can't find one that's public. From the main beams final report, I think
> http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
> has the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I pick a map from there as an
> example to show?
>
> Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes since
> it's something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we
don't
> have a guaranteed solution although there's good evidence for believing the
> new baffles will work.
>
>
>
> Immanuel Buder
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> (office) 617 495 7567
> (office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
> (mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> KeckArray mailing list
> KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
>
--
**********************************************************************
Christopher Sheehy - Ph.D. candidate - University of Chicago
Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, Department of Physics
Room 220 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-625-1802 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
3 Jun
3 Jun
7:17 p.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hi immanuel,
It looks like you have Keck E/B maps with a funky normalization. Attached
are better ones. Are you sure you have the right normalization for the
BICEP1 maps? We fretted quite a bit to get that right for Keck. The
BICEP1 E maps look to have too much power to me.
Also, NET from last year was 11 uK/rt(s). (i'm being a bit nit-pickey
here, but I quoted 11.5 for SPIE based on early May data, and it was down
below 11 for the mid-winter).
-Sarah
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Colin Bischoff <cbischoff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
hi Immanuel, Chris,
B2/Keck analysis will also be the first time that beam systematics
deprojection is used in its full glory (we only used relgain
deprojection in the B1 analysis).
Going along with Chin Lin's email, I'm sure that we have been up front
in previous talks about far field A/B offsets. So if we told people
about them back when they were pretty bad, we should *definitely* tell
people about them now that we have both analysis mitigation and
improved hardware!
-colin
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
wrote:
comment:
_______________________________________________
KeckArray mailing list
KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
Chris
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but it
should probably be emphasized that it's for the mid-term future, not the
near-term
Thanks, I'll make that more clear.
We might improve a few things (Kirit's estimator, for example) but for
the
most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is doing all
the improvements and
BICEP2
is just going to take advantage of them.
The improvements I'm going to talk about in this section are above and
beyond BICEP1 3-yr. I thought pureB was a major improvement that won't be
used in B1. I'll make clear that the BICEP1 3-yr improvements all carry
over
to B2 and Keck.
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles before? It's
not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
We have shown near-field difference maps before. I thought we had shown
far-field maps too, but I can't find one in any previous talk.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:48:57 -0500
From: Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu>
To: Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
Cc: BICEP BICEP <bicep(a)astro.caltech.edu>du>, bicep2-list
<bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>du>, Keckarray
<keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hi Immanuel,
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but it
should probably be emphasized that it's for the mid-term future, not the
near-term. Also, on slide 18, you cite "analysis improvements" for
BICEP2. I
don't know if that's correct. We might
improve a few things (Kirit's
estimator, for example) but for the most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is
doing all the improvements and BICEP2 is just going to take advantage of
them.
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
> collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public
before,
> but I think we're ready to show them as
a demonstration of the
matrix-based
analysis
we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles before? It's
not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
-Chris
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
wrote:
>
> I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
> The talk time is 35 minutes.
> Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for >
> Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want
something
> to underscore the importance of inflation
B-mode experiments after
Planck,
> but this may be too controversial. What do
you think?
>
> Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
>
> Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
>
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
> I think the map-making is mature enough to
show, but this is a map we
> haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show it, I
don't
> mind reverting to a previous analysis that
has been shown before.
> For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map depth/weighting
scheme
> [
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…
]
>
> Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like to,
> especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
>
> Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement we
get
> from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now
is for Keck from a recent
> posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I could find was from
early
> 2012 for the 0304 simset.
>
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
> collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public
before,
> but I think we're ready to show them as
a demonstration of the
matrix-based
> analysis we're working toward. Jamie
especially, do you agree?
>
> Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here, but I
> can't find one that's public. From the main beams final report, I think
>
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
> has the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I
pick a map from there as an
> example to show?
>
> Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes since
> it's something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we
don't
> have a guaranteed solution although there's good evidence for believing
the
new
baffles will work.
Immanuel Buder
Postdoctoral Fellow
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
(office) 617 495 7567
(office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
(mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
Cambridge, MA 02138
ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
_______________________________________________
KeckArray mailing list
KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
--
**********************************************************************
Christopher Sheehy - Ph.D. candidate - University of Chicago
Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, Department of Physics
Room 220 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-625-1802 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
9:07 p.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Thanks, Sarah.
Was the normalization problem fixed in the maps pager? That's where I
got the B2 map, so I wonder if it has the same problem.
Regarding B1 maps, I got them from Colin's slides so I'll redirect the
question to him.
I'll update the NET too.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:17:56 -0700
From: Sarah Stokes Kernasovskiy <sstokes(a)stanford.edu>
To: Colin Bischoff <cbischoff(a)gmail.com>
Cc: BICEP BICEP <bicep(a)astro.caltech.edu>du>, bicep2-list
<bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>du>, <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
<ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>du>, Keckarray <keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [Bicep2-list] [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hi immanuel,
It looks like you have Keck E/B maps with a funky normalization.
Attached are better ones. Are you sure you have the right
normalization for the BICEP1 maps? We fretted quite a bit to get that
right for Keck. The BICEP1 E maps look to have too much power to me.
Also, NET from last year was 11 uK/rt(s). (i'm being a bit nit-pickey
here, but I quoted 11.5 for SPIE based on early May data, and it was
down below 11 for the mid-winter).
-Sarah
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Colin Bischoff <cbischoff(a)gmail.com
<mailto:cbischoff@gmail.com>> wrote:
hi Immanuel, Chris,
B2/Keck analysis will also be the first time that beam systematics
deprojection is used in its full glory (we only used relgain
deprojection in the B1 analysis).
Going along with Chin Lin's email, I'm sure that we have been up front
in previous talks about far field A/B offsets. So if we told people
about them back when they were pretty bad, we should *definitely* tell
people about them now that we have both analysis mitigation and
improved hardware!
-colin
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Immanuel Buder
<ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:ibuder@cfa.harvard.edu>> wrote:
before?
It's
> --
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
>
_______________________________________________
> Bicep2-list mailing list
> Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
<mailto:Bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu>
> https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
_______________________________________________
KeckArray mailing list
KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu <mailto:KeckArray@lists.stanford.edu>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
Chris
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first
BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm
not against showing
it, but it
should probably be emphasized that it's for
the mid-term future,
not the
near-term
Thanks, I'll make that more clear.
We might improve a few things (Kirit's estimator, for example)
but for
the
most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is doing all
the improvements
and BICEP2
is just going to take advantage of them.
The improvements I'm going to talk about in this section are
above and
beyond BICEP1 3-yr. I thought pureB was a major
improvement that
won't be
used in B1. I'll make clear that the BICEP1
3-yr improvements
all carry over
to B2 and Keck.
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles
before?
It's
not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
We have shown near-field difference maps before. I thought we
had shown
far-field maps too, but I can't find one in
any previous talk.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:48:57 -0500
From: Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
<mailto:csheehy@uchicago.edu>>
To: Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
<mailto:ibuder@cfa.harvard.edu>>
Cc: BICEP BICEP <bicep(a)astro.caltech.edu
<mailto:bicep@astro.caltech.edu>>, bicep2-list
<bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
<mailto:bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu>>, Keckarray
<keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu
<mailto:keckarray@mailman.stanford.edu>>
Subject: Re: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hi Immanuel,
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first
BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm
not against showing
it, but it
should probably be emphasized that it's for
the mid-term future,
not the
near-term. Also, on slide 18, you cite
"analysis improvements"
for BICEP2. I
don't know if that's correct. We might
improve a few things (Kirit's
estimator, for example) but for the most part I think that
BICEP1 3-yr is
doing all the improvements and BICEP2 is just
going to take
advantage of
them.
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
> collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in
public before,
> but I think we're ready to show them as
a demonstration of the
matrix-based
analysis
we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
-Chris
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Immanuel Buder
<ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
<mailto:ibuder@cfa.harvard.edu>>
wrote:
>
> I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
<http://bmode.caltech.edu/%7Espuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf>
> The talk time is 35 minutes.
> Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests
for
comment:
>
> Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I
want
something
> to underscore the importance of inflation
B-mode experiments
after Planck,
> but this may be too controversial. What do
you think?
>
> Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
>
> Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
>
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
<http://bmode.caltech.edu/%7Espuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr_maps/>
> I think the map-making is mature enough to
show, but this is a
map we
> haven't shown in public before. If we
don't feel ready to show
it, I don't
> mind reverting to a previous analysis that
has been shown before.
> For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map
depth/weighting
scheme
>
[http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…
<http://bmode.caltech.edu/%7Espuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_depth/>]
>
>> Slide 20: Are we ready to
show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd
like to,
>> especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
>
>> Slide 21: Do we have a
recent posting showing how much
improvement we get
> from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now
is for Keck from
a recent
> posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2
posting I could find
was from early
>> 2012 for the 0304 simset.
>
>> Slide 22: The plots are
from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
>> collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in
public before,
> but I think we're ready to show them as
a demonstration of the
matrix-based
>> analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
>
>> Slide 24: I'd prefer
to show a far-field A-B difference map
here, but I
> can't find one that's public. From
the main beams final report,
I think
>
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
<http://bicep0.caltech.edu/%7Espuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_source/>
> has the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I
pick a map from
there as an
>> example to show?
>
>> Slide 29: I'd like
to include something about the Keck
sidelobes since
> it's something I've been working
on, but I realize it's new and
we don't
> have a guaranteed solution although
there's good evidence for
believing the
>> new baffles will work.
>
>
>
>> Immanuel
Buder
>> Postdoctoral Fellow
>> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
>> (office) 617 495 7567 <tel:617%20495%207567>
>> (office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
>> (mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
>> Cambridge, MA 02138
>> ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:ibuder@cfa.harvard.edu>
>
>>
_______________________________________________
>> KeckArray mailing list
>> KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu <mailto:KeckArray@lists.stanford.edu>
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
>
Christopher Sheehy - Ph.D. candidate - University
of Chicago
Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, Department of Physics
Room 220 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-625-1802 <tel:612-625-1802> Fax: 612-624-4578
<tel:612-624-4578> email: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
<mailto:csheehy@uchicago.edu>
9:23 p.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
It was updated in the maps pager. Clem fixed it in make_ebmaps.m The
BICEP2 E-modes you show have roughly the same power as my Keck ones.
Thanks!
-Sarah
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>wrote;wrote:
Thanks, Sarah.
Was the normalization problem fixed in the maps pager? That's where I got
the B2 map, so I wonder if it has the same problem.
Regarding B1 maps, I got them from Colin's slides so I'll redirect the
question to him.
I'll update the NET too.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:17:56 -0700
From: Sarah Stokes Kernasovskiy <sstokes@stanford.edu><sstokes@stanford.edu>
To: Colin Bischoff <cbischoff(a)gmail.com> <cbischoff(a)gmail.com>
Cc: BICEP BICEP <bicep(a)astro.caltech.edu> <bicep(a)astro.caltech.edu>du>,
bicep2-list
<bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu><bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu>,
<ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu> <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
<ibuder@cfa.harvard.edu><ibuder@cfa.harvard.edu>,
Keckarray <keckarray@mailman.stanford.edu><keckarray@mailman.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [Bicep2-list] [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hi immanuel,
It looks like you have Keck E/B maps with a funky normalization.
Attached are better ones. Are you sure you have the right normalization
for the BICEP1 maps? We fretted quite a bit to get that right for Keck.
The BICEP1 E maps look to have too much power to me.
Also, NET from last year was 11 uK/rt(s). (i'm being a bit nit-pickey
here, but I quoted 11.5 for SPIE based on early May data, and it was down
below 11 for the mid-winter).
-Sarah
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Colin Bischoff <cbischoff(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
hi Immanuel, Chris,
B2/Keck analysis will also be the first time that beam systematics
deprojection is used in its full glory (we only used relgain
deprojection in the B1 analysis).
Going along with Chin Lin's email, I'm sure that we have been up front
in previous talks about far field A/B offsets. So if we told people
about them back when they were pretty bad, we should *definitely* tell
people about them now that we have both analysis mitigation and
improved hardware!
-colin
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
wrote:
It's
_______________________________________________
KeckArray mailing list
KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing
listBicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.eduhttps://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
Chris
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but
it
should probably be emphasized that it's for
the mid-term future, not the
near-term
Thanks, I'll make that more clear.
We might improve a few things (Kirit's estimator, for example) but for
the
most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr is doing all
the improvements and
BICEP2
is just going to take advantage of them.
The improvements I'm going to talk about in this section are above and
beyond BICEP1 3-yr. I thought pureB was a major improvement that won't
be
used in B1. I'll make clear that the BICEP1
3-yr improvements all carry
over
to B2 and Keck.
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles before?
It's
not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
We have shown near-field difference maps before. I thought we had shown
far-field maps too, but I can't find one in any previous talk.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:48:57 -0500
From: Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu>
To: Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
Cc: BICEP BICEP <bicep(a)astro.caltech.edu>du>, bicep2-list
<bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>du>, Keckarray
<keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hi Immanuel,
We are not going to use the matrix based analysis for the first BICEP2
paper, so your slide 22 is misleading. I'm not against showing it, but
it
should probably be emphasized that it's for
the mid-term future, not the
near-term. Also, on slide 18, you cite "analysis improvements" for
BICEP2. I
don't know if that's correct. We might
improve a few things (Kirit's
estimator, for example) but for the most part I think that BICEP1 3-yr
is
doing all the improvements and BICEP2 is just
going to take advantage of
them.
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
> collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public
before,
> but I think we're ready to show them as
a demonstration of the
matrix-based
analysis
we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
Is it really true we've never shown beam maps of our dipoles before? not like our A/B offsets are a secret.
-Chris
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Immanuel Buder <
ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>
wrote:
>
> I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
> The talk time is 35 minutes.
> Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for
comment:
>
> Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want
something
> to underscore the importance of inflation
B-mode experiments after
Planck,
> but this may be too controversial. What do
you think?
>
> Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
>
> Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
>
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
> I think the map-making is mature enough to
show, but this is a map we
> haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show it, I
don't
> mind reverting to a previous analysis that
has been shown before.
> For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map depth/weighting
scheme
> [
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…
]
>
> Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like
to,
> especially to show the error bars compared to
r=0.1.
>
> Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement we
get
> from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now
is for Keck from a recent
> posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I could find was from
early
> 2012 for the 0304 simset.
>
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
> collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public
before,
> but I think we're ready to show them as
a demonstration of the
matrix-based
> analysis we're working toward. Jamie
especially, do you agree?
>
> Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here, but I
> can't find one that's public. From the main beams final report, I think
>
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
> has the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I
pick a map from there as
an
> example to show?
>
> Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes since
> it's something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we
don't
> have a guaranteed solution although
there's good evidence for
believing the
new
baffles will work.
Immanuel Buder
Postdoctoral Fellow
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
(office) 617 495 7567
(office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
(mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
Cambridge, MA 02138
ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
_______________________________________________
KeckArray mailing list
KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
--
**********************************************************************
Christopher Sheehy - Ph.D. candidate - University of Chicago
Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, Department of Physics
Room 220 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-625-1802 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
31 May
31 May
5:17 p.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hi Immanuel,
Comments on two of your items below
Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this
slide yet. I want something
to underscore the importance of inflation B-mode experiments after Planck,
but this may be too controversial. What do you think?
This is okay if that is how you prefer to look at. Personally, I think
Inflation and B-modes have been important before that statement and have
not changed in importance as of the Planck result. The way I like to think
about it is that SPT+WMAP, and now Planck, have had the final say on "r"
as far as temperature is concerned, and now we need polarization to do any
better.
Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the
Keck sidelobes since
it's
something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we don't have
a
guaranteed solution although there's good evidence for believing the new
baffles will work.
I think you misrepresent our situation here and make things look really
bad for Keck. I have also been asked by people about this same thing, so I
think it is a common misconception that we need to be careful not to
portray. Or, maybe I am misinterpreting what you plan on saying while
showing those slides.
There is an important distinction between sidelobes that we block with a
forebaffle and ones we dont. The sidelobes that are ugly, but normally
caught with our absorbing forebaffle result in extra unwanted loading and
some mapping speed hit that is not ideal. But, because we catch them, they
arent the same as ugly far sidelobes that are scanning the CMB.
If you want to present the weird looking maps of far side-lobes, then you
should probably show ones with and without the forebaffles, and try to
estimate the amount of power in a few ugly features that arent caught by
the sidelobes.
Instead, I think you should focus on the sensitivity hit part of it. I
view the important baffle work at Harvard primarily as a way to get rid of
this extra loading and get a 5-10% improvement in sensitivity. So the
setup slide would be a forebaffle on-off loading measurement, not pictures
of ugly beams.
-Zak
Immanuel Buder
Postdoctoral Fellow
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
(office) 617 495 7567
(office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
(mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
Cambridge, MA 02138
ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
_______________________________________________
KeckArray mailing list
KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
5:30 p.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like to,
especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
So anyone will be able to see what our sensitivity is? I for one don't want
to spur any competitors into action, not right now.
-Chris
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu>wrote;wrote:
> I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
> The talk time is 35 minutes.
> Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for comment:
>
> Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want something
> to underscore the importance of inflation B-mode experiments after Planck,
> but this may be too controversial. What do you think?
>
> Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
>
> Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
> I think the map-making is mature enough to show, but this is a map we
> haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show it, I
don't
> mind reverting to a previous analysis that has been shown before.
> For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map depth/weighting scheme
> [
> http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…
> ]
Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like to,
especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
>
> Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement we get
> from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now is for Keck from a recent
> posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I could find was from
> early 2012 for the 0304 simset.
>
> Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
> collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public before,
> but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the matrix-based
> analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
>
> Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here, but I
> can't find one that's public. From the main beams final report, I think
> http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I pick a map from there as an
> example to show?
>
> Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes since
> it's something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we
don't
> have a guaranteed solution although there's good evidence for believing the
> new baffles will work.
>
>
>
> Immanuel Buder
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> (office) 617 495 7567
> (office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
> (mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> KeckArray mailing list
> KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
>
>
--
**********************************************************************
Christopher Sheehy - Ph.D. candidate - University of Chicago
Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, Department of Physics
Room 220 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-625-1802 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu
**********************************************************************
6:48 p.m.
New subject: [keckarray] CMB2013 Talk Slides
Hey,
Upon closer inspection, the centroid offset appears to be near-field data
(or so the title suggests), which is weird to present to the audience you
expect at this conference. Zak may want to comment on what data sets are
in there since he's credited, but I've attached a couple far-field version
that shows the obvious difference between a tiles pre- and post- fix. We
presented these at SPIE last summer. They could be fused into one plot
with little effort. These plots only show one type of fix (the other was
already remedied by the time we made these measurements), but I don't
think your audience will really care much about such details anyway.
Roger
I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013
(Okinawa) at
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf
The talk time is 35 minutes.
Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for comment:
Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want something
to underscore the importance of inflation B-mode experiments after Planck,
but this may be too controversial. What do you think?
Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out?
Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr…
I think the map-making is mature enough to show, but this is a map we
haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show it, I
don't
mind reverting to a previous analysis that has been shown before.
For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map depth/weighting scheme
[
http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep…
]
Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like to,
especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1.
Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement we get
from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now is for Keck from a recent
posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I could find was from
early 2012 for the 0304 simset.
Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the
collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public before,
but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the
matrix-based
analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree?
Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here, but I
can't find one that's public. From the main beams final report, I think
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_…
the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I pick a map from there as an
example to show?
Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes since
it's
something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we don't have
a
guaranteed solution although there's good evidence for believing the new
baffles will work.
Immanuel Buder
Postdoctoral Fellow
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
(office) 617 495 7567
(office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C
(mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42
Cambridge, MA 02138
ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu
_______________________________________________
KeckArray mailing list
KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
4001
days inactive
4005
days old
bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu
11 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Chin Lin Wong -
Chris Sheehy -
Colin Bischoff -
Immanuel Buder -
rogero＠caltech.edu -
Sarah Stokes Kernasovskiy -
zks＠caltech.edu