7992
Comment:
|
8886
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 12: | Line 12: |
<br> __Redo and improve tests stated since run 1 on the upgraded instrument.__ |
__Redo and improve tests started since run 1__ |
Line 15: | Line 15: |
1. Optimisation of tone comb position: arrays 1 and 3 have systematically about one line of pixels missing per multiplexed feed line; this is due to the limited bandwidth of the NIKEL boards w.r.t. the resonance frequencies span, we may recover a number of pixels by optimizing the tone comb position. | 1. Optimisation of tone comb position: is it possible to optimize the number of A1 and A3 pixels fitting the NIKEL bandwidth ? |
Line 18: | Line 18: |
1. More specifically about synchronization of NIKA2 samples with telescope coordinates: to test if we the previous systematic errors are solved with the new boards, and that using PPS time is sufficient to cope with possible fluctuations of the DP time distribution used to define the UTC time in each box → to make this test do beam maps at various speed, elevation, scan pattern (not only zig-zag, but also only increasing azimuth, only decreasing azimuth etc.), and also various acquisition frequency. 1. Investigate best threshold for decalage between subscan, because systematic ftone jumps between subscans will kill the sky noise low frequency decorrelation. So decalage between subscan should be only in case of high background sky variations that would be so big that we would loose the resonances otherwise, hence the scan. An optimum has to be found. |
1. More specifically about synchronization of NIKA2 samples with telescope coordinates: to test if we the previous systematic errors are solved with the new boards, and that using PPS time is sufficient to cope with possible fluctuations of the UDP time distribution used to define the UTC time in each box → to make this test do beam maps at various speed, elevation, subscan direction and acquisition frequency. 1. Investigate optimal threshold for decalage between subscan (systematic ftone jumps between subscans will kill the sky noise low frequency decorrelation, so decalage between subscan should be only in case of high background sky variations that would be so big that we would loose the resonances otherwise, hence the scan). 1. '''Beams characterization is again the priority''' (after quality checks listed on previous items): '''beam maps repeated for statistics is the main tool, using XYZ focus optimization and best weather'''. Pay attention also at the possible dependence with elevation. |
Line 21: | Line 22: |
1. Check and understand possible flag problems during skydips. | |
Line 23: | Line 23: |
1. Test very large beam maps (> 30') to investigate error beams, keeping same integration time (scan faster). | |
Line 26: | Line 27: |
1. Beams characterization is again the priority (after quality checks listed on previous items): beam maps repeated for statistics is the main tool, using XYZ focus optimization. Pay attention also at the possible dependence with elevation. | |
Line 28: | Line 28: |
1. Regular skydips: at least once per day. | 1. Regular skydips: at least once per day. 1. Check and understand possible flag problems during skydips and other scan types. |
Line 33: | Line 34: |
1. Depending on the completion of previous items, go for more advanced characterizations, and mapping extended features (test various map making strategies in analysis software [Pipeline, scanamorphos, etc.]). 1. Consider NGC891 to make a show case for NIKA2, in particular for the polarization mode (edge on galaxy → ~5% dust polar expected...) |
1. Depending on the completion of previous items, go for more advanced characterizations, and mapping extended features (test various map making strategies in analysis software [Pipeline, scanamorphos, etc.]). Consider NGC891 to make a show case for NIKA2, in particular for the polarization mode (edge on galaxy → ~5% dust polar expected...). 1. Possibly test the external calibrator that will be finalized during the summer, using an external mirror to redirect part of its flux into the instrument FOV. Placing it in the secondary could be considered only after we prove we can handle it, use it, that it is useful (e.g. help decorrelate atmosphere from acquisition gain instabilities), and small and light enough for the lodging into M2. |
Line 36: | Line 37: |
The [[http://www.iram.fr/wiki/nika2/index.php/NIKA2_Run1_30m_CharacterizationPlan|detailed characterization plan]] established for run 1 needs to be updated. <<BR>> A more concise version, including a status summary might be written ... when I find time for this... (SL). |
|
Line 37: | Line 40: |
Beams characterization from previous runs and expectations with the upgrade: | <<BR>> == Complementary information == '' __Beams characterization from previous runs and expectations with the upgrade:__ |
Line 42: | Line 48: |
<<BR>> __Upgrades on acquisition side__ * The old nika2-a computer will be now dedicated to acquisition only, the new nika2-b twin will be used for data processing. * The hard disk storage has been bought. * '''What about the upgrade on live scan information transmission (ELVIN or new UDP or bidirectional link) ?''' * Is there some upgrades on acquisition software (Camadia) and online data processing (Pipeline), to fix or cope with possible technical problems (e.g. NIKEL box synchro, with possible mismatch of times ; tuning during scans ; uncorrelated oscillations in timelines ; focus errors ...) ? '' |
|
Line 43: | Line 56: |
The detailed characterization plan established for run 1 is still valid, but needs to be updated; you can still look at it to check possible missing action items: [[http://www.iram.fr/wiki/nika2/index.php/NIKA2_Run1_30m_CharacterizationPlan]] <<BR>> A more concise version, including a status summary might be written ... when I find time for this... (SL). |
<<BR>> == Schedules of the run == |
Line 47: | Line 59: |
[[http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/PV/sche/16/s37v1.html|Telescope Schedule week 1]] → Hardware upgrade on Fri 16 & Sat 17 of September.<<BR>> [[http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/PV/sche/16/s39v1.html|Telescope Schedule weeks 2]] → Test on sky after cool down on Sat 24 & Sun 25.<<BR>> [[http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/PV/sche/16/s41v1.html|Telescope Schedule weeks 2]] → 16h/day from Tue 4 to Tue 11 of October.<<BR>> |
|
Line 48: | Line 63: |
== Preparation of the run == | All the persons who will participate to the run must appear in the table below; each one must have informed at least Samuel, Nicolas, Esther (for the rooms in Granada and at the telescope), Beatrice (for the ones who fly on IRAM funds, see [[http://www.iram.fr/wiki/nika2/index.php/Travel_rules|NIKA2 travel rules]]). |
Line 50: | Line 65: |
[[http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/PV/sche/16/s37v1.html|Telescope Schedule week 1]] ==> Upgrade on Fri 16 & Sat 17 of September. [[http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/PV/sche/16/s39v1.html|Telescope Schedule weeks 2]] ==> Test on sky after cool down on Sat 24 & Sun 25. [[http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/PV/sche/16/s41v1.html|Telescope Schedule weeks 2]] ==> 16h/day from Tue 4 to Tue 11 of October. |
Staff of the run: table of the nights spent at the observatory for the NIKA2 collaboration members participating to the run (T means Tuesday, S means Saturday, 1 stands for night scheduled at the telescope).<<BR>> First day at the telescope: Friday, September 16, 2016.<<BR>> |
Line 54: | Line 68: |
Staff of the run: table of the nights spent at the observatory for the NIKA2 collaboration members participating to the run (T means Tuesday, S means Saturday, first night with NIKA2 staff is Tuesday 29 September, last night is Monday 9 November, 1 stands for night scheduled at the telescope, p stands for possible extension in case of problem with the cryostat). | ||<rowbgcolor="#e5dd55"> People\Date ||15/09||16||S17||18||19||20||21||22||23||S24||25||30->3/10||T4||5||6||7||S8||9||10||T11|| ||<rowbgcolor="#ffcccc"> A.Monfardini ||1||1||1||1||1||1||1||1||1||1||1|| || || || || || || || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ffcccc"> M.Calvo ||1||1||1||1||1 (?)|| || || || || || || || || || || ||1|| || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ffcccc"> J.Goupy ||1||1||1||1||1 (?)|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ffcccc"> A. Bideaud ||1||1||1||1||1 (?)|| 1 (?)||1 (?)||1 (?) || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ffcccc"> O.Bourrion || || || || ||1||1||1||1|| || || || || || || || || || || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ffcccc"> A.Catalano || || || || || || || || || || || ||1|| || || || || || || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ffcccc"> N.Ponthieu || || || || || || || || || || || || ||1||1||1||1||1||1||1|| || ||<rowbgcolor="#ffeedd"> S.Leclercq || ||1||1||1||1|| || || || || || || ||1||1||1||1||1||1||1|| || ||<rowbgcolor="#aaddaa"> || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ddcc55"> Sleep at obs. || 3 || 3 || 3 || 4 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || || |
Line 56: | Line 80: |
||<rowbgcolor="#e5dd55"> People\Date || T1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || S5 || 6 || 7 || T8 || 9 || 10 || 11 || S12 || 13 || 14 || ||<rowbgcolor="#ffcccc"> A.Catalano || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || || || || || || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#aaddaa"> A.Maury || || || || || || || || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ccccff"> J.F.Macias-Perez|| || || || || || || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || ||<rowbgcolor="#ccccff"> J.Ph.Bernard || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || ||<rowbgcolor="#ccccff"> M. de Petris || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || || || || || || || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ccccff"> A.Beelen || || || || || || || || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || ||<rowbgcolor="#ccccff"> F.Ruppin || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || || || || || || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ccccff"> C.Romero || || || || || || || || || || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || ||<rowbgcolor="#ccccff"> H.Aussel || || || || || || || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || || || ||<rowbgcolor="#ddcc55"> Sleep at obs. || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 6 || 4 || 4 || 5 || 5 || 5 || 4 || 3 || AOD: A.Sievers/P.Garcia on week 1; F.Damour/J.L.Santaren (operators) on week 2. [[http://www.iram.es/IRAMES/mainWiki/AstronomerOnDutySchedule|Astronomer on Duty]] |
IRAM's [[http://www.iram.es/IRAMES/mainWiki/AstronomerOnDutySchedule|Astronomer on Duty]]. |
NIKA2 run #5 September 2016
Goals of the run
Upgrade the instrument with new hardware
- new dichroic (flattened on membrane, vs more floppy before),
- new 2mm array (less pixels, but bigger to conserve FOV),
- new corrugated lenses and window (the whole 8 dioptres on the optical path all corrugated with small pyramids vs none before),
new NIKEL boards for array 2 and 3 (=> v3 everywhere vs v1, v2 and v3 previously).
Redo and improve tests started since run 1
Check data & flags consistency & synchronization: Raw, FIT for Pipeline, IMBFIT.
- Optimisation of tone comb position: is it possible to optimize the number of A1 and A3 pixels fitting the NIKEL bandwidth ?
- Test possible improvement on synchronization of NIKA2 data with telescope online scans information (e.g. subscan start and stop, tuning and decalage time and duration, etc.). Check with Granada staff if we have now a more direct link with ELVIN or if we use instead a UDP connection to a nika2-a port.
- Test possible improvement on synchronization of NIKA2 data within itself (NIKEL boxes vs boxes internal consistency when recovering from lost synchro), and with telescope antenna-imbfits information (e.g. coordinates, zig-zag on beam maps).
More specifically about synchronization of NIKA2 samples with telescope coordinates: to test if we the previous systematic errors are solved with the new boards, and that using PPS time is sufficient to cope with possible fluctuations of the UDP time distribution used to define the UTC time in each box → to make this test do beam maps at various speed, elevation, subscan direction and acquisition frequency.
- Investigate optimal threshold for decalage between subscan (systematic ftone jumps between subscans will kill the sky noise low frequency decorrelation, so decalage between subscan should be only in case of high background sky variations that would be so big that we would loose the resonances otherwise, hence the scan).
Beams characterization is again the priority (after quality checks listed on previous items): beam maps repeated for statistics is the main tool, using XYZ focus optimization and best weather. Pay attention also at the possible dependence with elevation.
- Check and understand possible pointing variations (e.g. vs elevation, vs azimuth, vs time, vs focus).
- Investigate optimal beam map strategy (1 map vs 3x submaps).
Test very large beam maps (> 30') to investigate error beams, keeping same integration time (scan faster).
- Check and understand non-symmetrical noise distribution.
- Check jumps and instabilities.
- Check expected diminution of cross-talk on array 2 and better stability.
- Elements that come "for free" with many beam maps: increase statistics on kid stability, photometry, sensitivity and time line features.
- Regular skydips: at least once per day.
- Check and understand possible flag problems during skydips and other scan types.
- A session of KIDs working point optimization (e.g. gain, dftone modulation frequency and amplitude, etc. see with specialists of the instrument like Alessandro, Martino, Alain...) ?
- Continue observations of many calibrators to monitor our sensitivity and photometry.
- Continue tests on polarization mode: beam maps, various scan speed and sampling frequencies.
- Deep integration on a sub mJy source for several hours (~10), to check stability of sensitivity (rms vs sqrt(time)).
Depending on the completion of previous items, go for more advanced characterizations, and mapping extended features (test various map making strategies in analysis software [Pipeline, scanamorphos, etc.]). Consider NGC891 to make a show case for NIKA2, in particular for the polarization mode (edge on galaxy → ~5% dust polar expected...).
- Possibly test the external calibrator that will be finalized during the summer, using an external mirror to redirect part of its flux into the instrument FOV. Placing it in the secondary could be considered only after we prove we can handle it, use it, that it is useful (e.g. help decorrelate atmosphere from acquisition gain instabilities), and small and light enough for the lodging into M2.
The detailed characterization plan established for run 1 needs to be updated.
A more concise version, including a status summary might be written ... when I find time for this... (SL).
Complementary information
Beams characterization from previous runs and expectations with the upgrade: At 2mm the dichroic deformation was dominant, and the array more unstable than 1mm arrays (CPW vs micro strip design ?). → Should be fixed now. On all bands there is an asymmetry on beams pedestal, which is also visible on lab measures, indicating a possible optics problem in the cryostat. → There's practically no chance that the new lenses will improve this. We expect and increase of the transmission efficiency by >25% using the corrugated lenses instead of the previous smooth surfaces. What about the upgrade on live scan information transmission (ELVIN or new UDP or bidirectional link) ?
Upgrades on acquisition side
Schedules of the run
Telescope Schedule week 1 → Hardware upgrade on Fri 16 & Sat 17 of September.
Telescope Schedule weeks 2 → Test on sky after cool down on Sat 24 & Sun 25.
Telescope Schedule weeks 2 → 16h/day from Tue 4 to Tue 11 of October.
All the persons who will participate to the run must appear in the table below; each one must have informed at least Samuel, Nicolas, Esther (for the rooms in Granada and at the telescope), Beatrice (for the ones who fly on IRAM funds, see NIKA2 travel rules).
Staff of the run: table of the nights spent at the observatory for the NIKA2 collaboration members participating to the run (T means Tuesday, S means Saturday, 1 stands for night scheduled at the telescope).
First day at the telescope: Friday, September 16, 2016.
People\Date |
15/09 |
16 |
S17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
S24 |
25 |
30->3/10 |
T4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
S8 |
9 |
10 |
T11 |
A.Monfardini |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.Calvo |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 (?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
J.Goupy |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 (?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bideaud |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 (?) |
1 (?) |
1 (?) |
1 (?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O.Bourrion |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.Catalano |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.Ponthieu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
S.Leclercq |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sleep at obs. |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
IRAM's Astronomer on Duty.