| FILE TYPE LINK LEGEND: | HTML | PPTX & PPT | XLSX | DOCX & DOC | JPG, PNG, GIF |
→ PICO Wiki ARCHIVED SITE - HOME
Telecon 20180516
Attending: Brian, Tom, Kris, Hannes, Jacque, Shaul, Karl, Qi,
Notes by : Qi
Agenda
- Precession Period (Kris, Jacques)
- More Slides (.pdf)
- Noise/Bands Figure (.pdf)
- Noise Requirements vs Best Case Estimate (BCE)
- Proposal: Req = BCE*rt(2)/0.9, independent of frequency
- rt(2) because “Planck achieved noise within ~20% of BCE” (to be checked)
- 0.9 because the cost models assume 90% yield
- first factor is applied on individual detectors, second factor on the array.
Notes
- Precession Period (Kris)
- Shaul: we've debating whether fast or slow precession; Jacques's argument was too fast precessions give large gaps
- high-resolution, 1.6 arcmin simulations, single detector
- 10 hours vs 48 hours; 2,4,5,…, 365 days of scanning
- blue (or gray on right side) is either 0 or just a few hits; yellow is a few hundred
- short-time plots show difference, but long-time show less difference
- Kris argues that either option is good at some locations; we need to specify science goals before we really answer this question. Also, since we are using action-wheels, we can fairly easily adjust precession in space. This is different from Planck. Planck did have some big gaps.
- Jacque argues that we need to compare gap size with beam size. 48 hours comes from CORE study, which has 2-min spin rate and 96-hour precession.
- conclusion: the report should probably say “there are a range of considerations, for either 10 or 48 hours”
- Shaul: the fly-wheel will be able to do the change of precession; slow-motion can also be done.
- Noise Requirements vs Best Case Estimate (BCE)
- Best case estimate: not everything is most optimistic, just reasonable.
- Shaul proposed BEC/sqrt(2)*0.9
- root 2 is coming from Planck, which had achieved within 20% BCE.
- 0.9 is 90% yield of pixels; BCE is optimistic on 100%-yield assumption
- This number is for feedback loop to science teams.
- Jacques: CORE did something similar, no major impacts on science
- Noise/Bands Figure
- goal: a standard visual
- needs to clarify things, needs suggestions
Last modified: 2018/05/16 15:49 by wenxx181
