Hi Chris,
Jamie, can you confirm?) and I simulated a 3 deg. FWHM
sidelobe, so that's a difference.
Yes, my sim is with a 4 degree FWHM sidelobe, so it is different than yours. I could
change to 3 degree, but it seems like it will probably make little difference.
He also notes that it causes extra power in the scan
direction and FPU jacks (jack 2 and 4
Yes, the scan direction jacknife seems very strange. I am hoping that I messed something
up, because I don't have an explanation for it.
It looks like your sims are also have trouble with the FPU jack. Do you disagree?
However, I do agree with the statement that sidelobes with 10% power appear to be having
significant effects on BB and are consistent with the stacked beammaps.
Jamie
On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu> wrote:
Hi Clem,
It sounds like your work indicates that a uniform
differential monopole
sidelobe with <10% power in the difference beam may be a viable candidate?
Yes, it could be. Jamie's 10% power sidelobe sims would simulate a pair-sum beam
just as undetectable as my 10% power sidelobe sims. Jamie simulated a 4 degree sidelobe (I
assume FWHM, not sigma - Jamie, can you confirm?) and I simulated a 3 deg. FWHM sidelobe,
so that's a difference.
In Jamie's posting, he notes that a 10% power sidelobe with a differential monopole
causes spurious BB. Looking at the pager, it appears to all be our lowest ell bin. He also
notes that it causes extra power in the scan direction and FPU jacks (jack 2 and 4).
Looking at the scan direction jack, BB spectrum in Jamie's pager, it's not clear
that it couldn't be at a level subdominant to statistical fluctuations over many
realizations. (See my posting from last week where I added more realizations.) However,
the FPU jack does seem to have a pretty high level of contamination. I am, though, trying
to think why a differential monopole would cause scan direction and FPU jackknife
failure.
-Chris
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Clem Pryke <pryke(a)physics.umn.edu> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I can't see your posting at the moment but sounds good.
>
It sounds like your work indicates that a uniform
differential monopole
sidelobe with <10% power in the difference beam may be a viable candidate?
>
It's visibility (or not) in (non-diff) beam maps would be similar as would
> it's ability to cause failure in the WMAP cross comparison. It also would
> produce the proper TB correlation pattern (and evade jackknifes).
>
> [I am aware that Jamie T has made a new posting on monopole sidelobes but I
> can't see it either at the moment...]
>
> 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
> **********************************************************************
--
**********************************************************************
Christopher Sheehy - Graduate Student - University of Chicago
University of Minnesota,
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