Differences between revisions 26 and 30 (spanning 4 versions)
Revision 26 as of 2013-06-14 14:24:55
Size: 776
Comment:
Revision 30 as of 2013-06-14 14:30:34
Size: 1004
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 16: Line 16:
 .We detect the source at both wavelenghts, shown on the maps given bellow  .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.
 .The time per pixel maps are also shown
Line 18: Line 20:
   .The profiles are computed by averaging the map in concentric annuli
Line 21: Line 21:
 .{{attachment:1mm_time.pdf||width=700,height=400}} {{attachment:2mm_time.pdf||width=700,height=400}}

Brief analysis of the faint source HLS091828 (z=5.243)

Coordinates:

  • R.A. = 09h18m28.6s
  • Dec. = 51d42'23.3"

Fluxes (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 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.
  • The time per pixel maps are also shown
  • 1mm_map.pdf 2mm_map.pdf

  • 1mm_profile.pdf 2mm_profile.pdf

  • 1mm_time.pdf 2mm_time.pdf

HLS091828 (last edited 2013-06-15 07:27:56 by NikaBolometer)