|
Size: 602
Comment:
|
Size: 1847
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 2: | Line 2: |
| Line 8: | Line 7: |
| '''''Fluxes (Combes et al. 2012): ''''' | '''''Expected luxes (Combes et al. 2012): ''''' .F1.3sma= 55+-7mJy .F0.88mm= 125+-8mJy .F2mm= 15+-7mJy |
| Line 10: | Line 12: |
| F1.3sma= 55+-7mJy F0.88mm= 125+-8mJy F2mm= 15+-7mJy |
'''''NIKA obsevations:''''' .''Day:'' 13/06/2013 .''Scans'': 9 Lissajous of 5 min (<=> 45 min) each with followed by tracks (for tuning), 180 to 197 .''Size of the map'':90"x90" .We detect the source at both wavelenghts, shown on the maps given bellow. || {{attachment:1mm_map.png}} || {{attachment:2mm_map.png||width=550,height=400}} || || [[attachment:1mm_map.pdf]] || [[attachment:2mm_map.pdf]] || |
| Line 17: | Line 21: |
| '''''NIKA obsevations:''''' | .The profiles are computed by averaging the map in concentric annuli, and we check that the measured flux is, a priori, consistent with what we expect at 2mm but too high at 1mm. |
| Line 19: | Line 23: |
| Day: 13/06/2013 | || {{attachment:1mm_profile.png}} || {{attachment:2mm_profile.png}} || || [[attachment:1mm_profile.pdf]] || [[attachment:2mm_profile.pdf]] || |
| Line 21: | Line 26: |
| Scans: 9 Lissajous of 5 min each with followed by tracks (for tunning), 180 to 197 | .The time per pixel maps are also shown || {{attachment:1mm_time.png}} || {{attachment:2mm_time.png}} || || [[attachment:1mm_time.pdf]] || [[attachment:2mm_time.pdf]] || |
| Line 23: | Line 30: |
| Size of the map:90"x90" We detect the source at both wavelenght, shown on the maps given bellow {{attachment:1mm_map.pdf||width=600}} {{attachment:2mm_map.pdf||width=600}} |
.Combining Jack-Knife maps and time per pixel maps, we are able to estimate the noise level in the data. Note that this is in the case of high opacity (we can expect the noise to be reduced by a factor of about exp(-tau/sin(elevation)) ~ 2, and even more since the resonances are larger under large optical load), and at 1mm it might even be reduced again by a factor of ~2 since we are apparently over calibrated. .If this is correct, the noise is: . '''~50 mJy/Beam.sqrt(s) at 1mm''' . '''~15 mJy/Beam.sqrt(s) at 2mm''' || {{attachment:1mm_noise.png}} || {{attachment:2mm_noise.png}} || || [[attachment:1mm_noise.pdf]] || [[attachment:2mm_noise.pdf]] || |
Brief analysis of the faint source HLS091828 (z=5.243)
Coordinates:
- R.A. = 09h18m28.6s
- Dec. = 51d42'23.3"
Expected luxes (Combes et al. 2012):
- F1.3sma= 55+-7mJy
- F0.88mm= 125+-8mJy
- F2mm= 15+-7mJy
NIKA obsevations:
Day: 13/06/2013
Scans: 9 Lissajous of 5 min (<=> 45 min) each with followed by tracks (for tuning), 180 to 197
Size of the map:90"x90"
- We detect the source at both wavelenghts, shown on the maps given bellow.
- The profiles are computed by averaging the map in concentric annuli, and we check that the measured flux is, a priori, consistent with what we expect at 2mm but too high at 1mm.
- The time per pixel maps are also shown
- Combining Jack-Knife maps and time per pixel maps, we are able to estimate the noise level in the data. Note that this is in the case of high opacity (we can expect the noise to be reduced by a factor of about exp(-tau/sin(elevation)) ~ 2, and even more since the resonances are larger under large optical load), and at 1mm it might even be reduced again by a factor of ~2 since we are apparently over calibrated.
- If this is correct, the noise is:
~50 mJy/Beam.sqrt(s) at 1mm
~15 mJy/Beam.sqrt(s) at 2mm
