| FILE TYPE LINK LEGEND: | HTML | PPTX & PPT | XLSX | DOCX & DOC | JPG, PNG, GIF |
→ PICO Wiki ARCHIVED SITE - HOME
Telecon 20180425
Attending: Bill, Hannes, Shaul, Karl, Qi
Notes by : Qi
Agenda
- Workshop next week
- Comparing NETS: PICO, CORE, LiteBIRD
Notes
- link for workshop
- Noise comparison (Karl)
- page 2
- left is in log scale, right is just a zoom for low frequencies
- a few changes:
- 4 years to 5 years, after Mission study meeting, ~900M, still 10% less than cap
- 10% loss from low-pass filters. Planck had ~15%. There are 3-4 elements, each has ~3% loss.
- Bandwidth, optical efficiencies and temperatures are the main factors that distinguish experiments.
- PICO: 25% top-hat bandwidth, 70% optical efficiency (lenselet+loss+bolo)
- Karl is going to check with Jaques if spillover was included in optical efficiency for CORE; check with Toki if he can bring more numbers here for next week's workshop
- CORE has higher load in high-v, probably due to both warm mirrors (and warm stop)
- LiteBird: data not very available; from 2016 paper. Small pixel size, thus large spillover leads to low efficiency.
- Conclusion: all similar, most difference is high frequency due to mirror temperatures.
- page 3
- 6K is not totally hypothetical; Shaul talked with JPL engineers and it could end up at 6K.
- temperature stability at 6K
- Planck's 2K stage had very high emissivity, it dominated the coupling. Though the time scale was long enough that it did not affect data much.
- Bill: 95% observing time for 5 years may be optimistic.
Last modified: 2018/04/25 16:04 by wenxx181
