|
Size: 2060
Comment:
|
Size: 934
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 5: | Line 5: |
| === NP, June 1st, 2012 === | Create on page per subject, but keep all update and new entry for the same subject in the same page otherwise discussions are too difficult to follow (e.g. below: subject Gaussian beam and Disk Planet, has 3 entries). |
| Line 7: | Line 7: |
| Thanks to Robert's and Samuel's verifications, I found a bug in my simulation (the disk diameter was actually taken as the radius, hence doubling the effective size of the disk and enlarging the broadening). I remove the old plot of May 29 to avoid confusion and provide updated plots here below. | - [[PlanetConvol |Gaussian beam and Disk Planet: May 29, 2012, NP; May 31, 2012, RZ; June 1st, 2012, NP]] |
| Line 9: | Line 9: |
| The following plot shows the result of the convolution of a Gaussian (FWHM=10 arcsec) by a Gaussian (FWHM=8arcsec) or a disk (D=8arcsec). The difference between the two is indeed not very significant. | - [[ZemaxSimul2012 |Zemax simulations: FOV geometry simulated with grid distortion, effect of focus on PSF: June 04, 2012, SL]] |
| Line 11: | Line 11: |
| {{attachment:disk_convol_D=8_max_frac=0.1.png}} | - [[attachment:NikaRun4/RZearlyResults.pdf|RZ early results]] |
| Line 13: | Line 13: |
=== RZ, May 30 2012 === The figure fwhm_planet.png gives effective FWHM ~16 and 20arcsec for an 8arcsec disk convolved with 10 and 17arcsec Gaussians (input FWHM) correspondingly. This cannot be correct ! The upper limits for the resulting FWHM can be calculated for a convolution of a Gaussian with FWHM=8arcsec instead a disk: sqrt(8^2^+10^2^)=12.8 and sqrt(8^2^+17^2^)=18.8arcsec. To get the correct numbers I calculated the 2 cases, i.e. convolved an 8arcsec disc with FWHM=10 and 17arcsec Gaussians. The resulting sources are very well represented by Gaussians with FWHM of 11.1 and 17.7arcsec (no restrictions for the fitting). The difference of the resulting sources and the Gaussian fits are presented below. The discrepancy is -0.4 to +0.14% for the convolution with a FWHM=10arcsec and much below 1% for the convolution with a FWHM=17arcsec Gaussian. The effective FWHM in figure fwhm_planet.png therefore do not represent the correct values - or do I have a problem in reading this figure ? {{attachment:disk8convGauss10-gFit.png}} {{attachment:disk8convGauss17-gFit_large.png}} === NP, May 29 2012 === In preparation for beam studies on Mars, we wanted to estimate the impact of Mars diameter (8 arcsec these days) on the determination of NIKA's FWHM. First estimations of this effect were wrong and have been removed to avoid confusion, please see above at June 1st. |
- Data products: 12 June 2012: on the neel share area: /Archeops/NikaRun4AllData/FitsData you will find the Raw data (Z_ files) and fits files (A_ and B_). Imbfits files are on iram.es computers (to be reprocessed). Pixels directory gives the focal plane geometry reconstruction in fits files (Scan #218 on the 4h is recommended). |
Offline Processing Results
Create on page per subject, but keep all update and new entry for the same subject in the same page otherwise discussions are too difficult to follow (e.g. below: subject Gaussian beam and Disk Planet, has 3 entries).
- Gaussian beam and Disk Planet: May 29, 2012, NP; May 31, 2012, RZ; June 1st, 2012, NP
- Data products: 12 June 2012: on the neel share area: /Archeops/NikaRun4AllData/FitsData you will find the Raw data (Z_ files) and fits files (A_ and B_). Imbfits files are on iram.es computers (to be reprocessed). Pixels directory gives the focal plane geometry reconstruction in fits files (Scan #218 on the 4h is recommended).