Differences between revisions 43 and 61 (spanning 18 versions)
Revision 43 as of 2013-11-15 05:49:27
Size: 3644
Comment:
Revision 61 as of 2013-11-15 18:34:36
Size: 7236
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 9: Line 9:
'''14 November 2013''': OTF geometries on Mars and Uranus. Check of the focal plane geometry. First light of NIKA prototype with polarisation facilities. '''14 November 2013''': OTF geometries on Mars and Uranus. Check of the focal plane geometry. First light of NIKA prototype with polarisation facilities. In the afternoon tests on the power on the pixels check its uniformity on the 2 arrays.
Line 11: Line 11:
'''15 November 2013''': Cryostat back to 300K: 3He-4He mix recovery, heating trap. Polarisation facilities dismantling. Back to Granada. '''15 November 2013''': Cryostat back to 300K: 3He-4He mixture recovery, Turned off pulse tube, trap heating. Polarisation facilities dismantling. Back to Granada.


[[ListOfMaterials|List of materials left at the telescope]]
Line 18: Line 22:
'''Arrays''': 128 pixels 2mm - <1Hz/sqrtHz noise; 201 pixels 1mm about 10Hz/sqrtHz noise '''Arrays''':
130 (129 good) pixels 2mm - about 1Hz/sqrtHz noise (sky with tau about 0);
201 (about 185 good) pixels 1mm - about 5Hz/sqrtHz noise (sky with tau about 0);
The tests for the optimal power where conducted with the window closed with some alu foil -> not great in term of stability, could add some 1/f. Touching the foil made a clear signal (at least on the 1mm).
The final values for the different DAC gains can be seen in this image:
Line 20: Line 28:
'''Modulation frequency''': 8kHz 1mm, 4kHz 2mm {{attachment:DACgains.png||width=800}}
Line 22: Line 30:
''Figures: Settings of the 2 arrays. In red, NIKEL1 = 1mm, in blue NIKEL2 = 2mm.''

'''Modulation frequency''': 8kHz 1mm, 5kHz 2mm

'''Comments''': The noise on the sky was difficult to compare to the one seen during the test; it seemed to be dominated by the 1/f of the sky, getting to the values cited above only at the end (10Hz) of the spectrum. During the afternoon, for the 2mm array we changed the DAC values to increase the power at the end of the band. The pixels fed by the last DAC (aka 'the bad ones'), at the end with the alu foil window looked like this:

{{attachment:noise2mmLastDAC.png||width=800}}

''Figures: Noise on the last pixels of the 2mm array, looking at the alu foil.''

The other pixels had in general flatter spectra.

On the 1mm, the noise is higher, being typically between 3 to 10 Hz/rtHz at 10Hz and increasing for lower frequencies.

{{attachment:noise1mmAll.png||width=800}}

''Figures: Noise on the all the pixels of the 1mm array, looking at the alu foil.''

A few tests done to try to improve changed these values only a little bit. Maybe, though, the pixels are affected by the extra optical power on them. On sky, they could have been very probably better tuned, but the time was to scarce. Actually, when we went on sky, the settings chosen during the day ('tone' = 7) had to be changed 'on the fly' as with the lower optical load the readout power was too much. It was not possible to change it on a pixel by pixel basis so we just decided to lower 'tone' to 6 (roughly 1.5 dB less on each pixel). This allowed us to recover 'sane' resonances shapes but we have no idea if it was really the optimal condition. As usual, at the start of the 'real' run we should take all the necessary time on the sky to tune the detectors to their best conditions, as the 'on sky' conditions are difficult to replicate in the cabin. Anyway, on the sky we saw a lot of 1/f but that was clearly the atmosphere, which could be seen affecting us up to the 10Hz frequency probably..
Line 26: Line 53:
Opacity is measurd with the taumeter at 225 GHz Opacity is measured with the taumeter at 225 GHz
Line 46: Line 73:
|| 232 || 22h49 || Uranus || OTF_Geometry || || || -12.8, 3.8, -1.5 || 0.00001 || HWP+Pol ||
|| 241-245 || 23h34-23h47 || other observing || various || || || || || HWP+Pol+Cryostat in the cabin environment ||
|| 232 || 22h49 || Uranus || OTF_Geometry || || || -12.8, 3.8, -1.5 || 0.00001 || HWP+Pol (Geometry probably lost) ||
|| 241-245 || 23h34-23h47 || others observing || various || || || || || HWP+Pol+Cryostat in the cabin environment ||
Line 72: Line 99:
----
'''First test of the polarization pipeline on this scan of Uranus !'''

{{attachment:rf_didq_raw.png||width=600}}

An Example of a rf_didq timeline. The planet hardly shows up behing a significant spurious signal at harmonics of the HWP rotation frequency.

{{attachment:rf_didq_templ_sub.png||width=600}}

The spurious signal is fit as a sum of harmonics of the HWP rotation and subtracted. The obtained timeline now looks more like sky noise + signal

{{attachment:power_spec.png||width=600}}

Here is the comparison at the power spectrum level.

and here are the maps (not absolutely calibrated yet):

{{attachment:t_1mm.png||width=350}}
{{attachment:q_1mm.png||width=350}}
{{attachment:u_1mm.png||width=350}}
{{attachment:t_2mm.png||width=350}}
{{attachment:q_2mm.png||width=350}}
{{attachment:u_2mm.png||width=350}}

It certainly is too early to conclude, but the non zero signal seen in Q and U might be a hint of intrumental polarization at the level of 3 percent.

Back to the NIKA run 7

November 11th 2013, Alain Benoit, Martino Calvo and Andrea Catalano come to the 30m to install, cool down and testing the NIKA prototype.

12-13 November 2013: cryostat and Read-Out positioning in the cabin, cooling down, HWP Modulator installation at the pupil (120mm from the entrance lens of the cryostat).

14 November 2013: OTF geometries on Mars and Uranus. Check of the focal plane geometry. First light of NIKA prototype with polarisation facilities. In the afternoon tests on the power on the pixels check its uniformity on the 2 arrays.

15 November 2013: Cryostat back to 300K: 3He-4He mixture recovery, Turned off pulse tube, trap heating. Polarisation facilities dismantling. Back to Granada.

List of materials left at the telescope

STATUS

Cryostat Temperature: 150mK (set by temperature control).

Arrays: 130 (129 good) pixels 2mm - about 1Hz/sqrtHz noise (sky with tau about 0); 201 (about 185 good) pixels 1mm - about 5Hz/sqrtHz noise (sky with tau about 0); The tests for the optimal power where conducted with the window closed with some alu foil -> not great in term of stability, could add some 1/f. Touching the foil made a clear signal (at least on the 1mm). The final values for the different DAC gains can be seen in this image:

DACgains.png

Figures: Settings of the 2 arrays. In red, NIKEL1 = 1mm, in blue NIKEL2 = 2mm.

Modulation frequency: 8kHz 1mm, 5kHz 2mm

Comments: The noise on the sky was difficult to compare to the one seen during the test; it seemed to be dominated by the 1/f of the sky, getting to the values cited above only at the end (10Hz) of the spectrum. During the afternoon, for the 2mm array we changed the DAC values to increase the power at the end of the band. The pixels fed by the last DAC (aka 'the bad ones'), at the end with the alu foil window looked like this:

noise2mmLastDAC.png

Figures: Noise on the last pixels of the 2mm array, looking at the alu foil.

The other pixels had in general flatter spectra.

On the 1mm, the noise is higher, being typically between 3 to 10 Hz/rtHz at 10Hz and increasing for lower frequencies.

noise1mmAll.png

Figures: Noise on the all the pixels of the 1mm array, looking at the alu foil.

A few tests done to try to improve changed these values only a little bit. Maybe, though, the pixels are affected by the extra optical power on them. On sky, they could have been very probably better tuned, but the time was to scarce. Actually, when we went on sky, the settings chosen during the day ('tone' = 7) had to be changed 'on the fly' as with the lower optical load the readout power was too much. It was not possible to change it on a pixel by pixel basis so we just decided to lower 'tone' to 6 (roughly 1.5 dB less on each pixel). This allowed us to recover 'sane' resonances shapes but we have no idea if it was really the optimal condition. As usual, at the start of the 'real' run we should take all the necessary time on the sky to tune the detectors to their best conditions, as the 'on sky' conditions are difficult to replicate in the cabin. Anyway, on the sky we saw a lot of 1/f but that was clearly the atmosphere, which could be seen affecting us up to the 10Hz frequency probably..

OBSERVATIONS Log

Opacity is measured with the taumeter at 225 GHz

p2cor : 0

p7cor : 0

initial Focus : -2.40 mm

Scan

UT

Source

Command

Az

El

Pointing X, Y, Focus

Tau225

Comment

15

04h39

Mars

Track

0 , 0 , -2.4

0.15

16

04h45

Mars

OTF_Geometry

0 , 0 , -2.4

0.15

First map for choosing the reference pixels

17-21

04h58-05h04

Mars

Focus_Liss

0, 0, -2.4

0.15

22

05h05

Mars

Focus

0, 0, -2.4

0.15

23

05h47

Mars

OTF_Geometry

0, 0, -2.4

0.15

Tuning working during the map

211-218

21h34-21h57

Uranus

Track 300 300

55

190

0, 0, -2.4

0.00001

220-224

22h01-22h08

Uranus

Focus_Liss

0, 0, -2.4

0.00001

optimal focus probably over the range

225

22h10

Uranus

Cross

0, 0, -2.4

0.00001

226-230

22h12-22h18

Uranus

Focus_Liss

0, 0, -1

0.00001

set pointing Az=-12.8 El=3.8 set focus = -1.5

231

22h24

Uranus

OTF_Geometry

-12.8, 3.8, -1.5

0.00001

232

22h49

Uranus

OTF_Geometry

-12.8, 3.8, -1.5

0.00001

HWP+Pol (Geometry probably lost)

241-245

23h34-23h47

others observing

various

HWP+Pol+Cryostat in the cabin environment

FIRST RESULTS

focalplane.png

Figures: Focal Plane Geometry derived using scan 16: we chose the following reference pixels: 491 for 2mm array, 5 for 1mm array.

1mm.png

Figures: 1mm array from scan 231.

2mm.png

Figures: 2mm array from scan 231.

pol1.png pol2.png

Figures: Entire (top) and zoomed (bottom) Timeline of the scan 232 on Uranus in configuration NIKA + HWP-Pol


First test of the polarization pipeline on this scan of Uranus !

rf_didq_raw.png

An Example of a rf_didq timeline. The planet hardly shows up behing a significant spurious signal at harmonics of the HWP rotation frequency.

rf_didq_templ_sub.png

The spurious signal is fit as a sum of harmonics of the HWP rotation and subtracted. The obtained timeline now looks more like sky noise + signal

power_spec.png

Here is the comparison at the power spectrum level.

and here are the maps (not absolutely calibrated yet):

t_1mm.png q_1mm.png u_1mm.png t_2mm.png q_2mm.png u_2mm.png

It certainly is too early to conclude, but the non zero signal seen in Q and U might be a hint of intrumental polarization at the level of 3 percent.

Further results on polarisation measurements will come soon.......

PrepRun7 (last edited 2013-12-19 15:38:09 by NikaBolometer)