Walt, one last comment on this post:
In your section 3 list of systematics which may enter differently in Rx1
compared to B2 or other Keck receivers, I would add "pattern of DK angle
coverage on the sky" for which Sarah's post is one reference:
http://bicep.caltech.edu/~spuder/keck_analysis_logbook/analysis/20130401_pr…
I know of no complete theory here (which is true for many of your other
bullet points as well), but note that Rx1 is unique among B2 and other
Keck receivers in that its Q map is formed from nearly equal
contributions of A-B and B-A. (The next closest in this regard is
Rx0...which is the second worst spectral jack.) This may be nothing,
but I think it is worth thinking about.
J
On 10/21/13 6:39 PM, Walt Ogburn wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have a posting with some thoughts about what it means to fail the
spectral jack:
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20131016_spectr…
I find that adding BB power in the signal+noise sims somewhat reduces
the significance of the BICEP2/Keck and BICEP2/rx1 spectral jack
failures. In order to increase the error bars enough to formally pass
the jack, the BB power would have to be much larger than r=0.1.
We should also think about whether there are known systematics that can
cause a failure of this jack, and in particular whether there are
systematics that can cause the spectral jack to fail without
necessarily implying that the bottom line for r is untrustworthy.
- Walt
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
--
___________________________________________________________________
John Kovac jmkovac(a)cfa.harvard.edu
Associate Professor, Harvard University Astronomy Department
160 Concord Ave rm 310, Cambridge MA 02138, 617-496-0611