|
Size: 1043
Comment:
|
Size: 1428
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 7: | Line 7: |
| To analyze the sensitivity we computed the distribution of the noise from the winter 2003-2004 pool by normalizing to 1sec. This is a preliminary study assuming that before the switch to the NCS the onOff scans were of 200 s and after of 1200s. Before the NCS the scans were as well sometimes of 160s, leading to an overestimation by 12 \% of the noise. We split the distribution of the 1sec noise for the OCS and NCS period (see Fig. \ref{fig:noise1sec}). The comparison between both periods does not take into account any weather informations. We only compute the effective median rms noise achieved in 1sec by an onOff observation using the most sensitive pixel of the bolometer array. The results are given in the Table \ref{tab:rms1sec}. The loss in sensitivity occured for the onOff measurements is about 10 \% between both periods. | To analyze the sensitivity we computed the distribution of the noise from the winter 2003-2004 pool by normalizing to 1sec. This is a '''preliminary study''' assuming that before the switch to the NCS the onOff scans were of 200 s and after of 1200s. Before the NCS the scans were as well sometimes of 160s, leading to an overestimation by 12 % of the noise. [[BR]] We split the distribution of the 1sec noise for the OCS and NCS period (see Fig. 1). The comparison between both periods does not take into account any weather informations. We only compute the median rms noise achieved in 1sec by an onOff observation using the most sensitive pixel of the bolometer array. Fig. 1: Distribution of the real sensitivity for 1sec for the onOff merasurements during the OCS (solid line) and NCS (dashed line) period. The OCS rms noise is overestimated since all the scans are assumed to last 200s when some of them are actually of 160s (12 % difference). attachment:noise1secOCS-NCS.png The results are given in the Table 1. The loss in sensitivity occurred for the onOff measurements is about 10 % between both periods. This noise rms includes all the observing/data reduction factors (atmosphere, antenna, bolometer, data processing). |
| Line 11: | Line 19: |
| attachment:noise1secOCS-NCS.png | |
| Line 13: | Line 20: |
| Line 17: | Line 24: |
| Fig. 2: |
Statistics on the Mambo bolometers
Sensitivity
To analyze the sensitivity we computed the distribution of the noise from the winter 2003-2004 pool by normalizing to 1sec. This is a preliminary study assuming that before the switch to the NCS the onOff scans were of 200 s and after of 1200s. Before the NCS the scans were as well sometimes of 160s, leading to an overestimation by 12 % of the noise. BR We split the distribution of the 1sec noise for the OCS and NCS period (see Fig. 1). The comparison between both periods does not take into account any weather informations. We only compute the median rms noise achieved in 1sec by an onOff observation using the most sensitive pixel of the bolometer array.
Fig. 1: Distribution of the real sensitivity for 1sec for the onOff merasurements during the OCS (solid line) and NCS (dashed line) period. The OCS rms noise is overestimated since all the scans are assumed to last 200s when some of them are actually of 160s (12 % difference).
attachment:noise1secOCS-NCS.png
The results are given in the Table 1. The loss in sensitivity occurred for the onOff measurements is about 10 % between both periods. This noise rms includes all the observing/data reduction factors (atmosphere, antenna, bolometer, data processing).
Noise Statistics
Fig. 2:
attachment:ProbDetectMambo2OnOff.png