Re: VLBI interest in MIRA (xNTD)
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]
From: <stingay_at_email.protected>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:59:23 +1100
Hi Chris,
I think 2.4 GHz is important for the xNTD for VLBI. At 1.4 GHz we do
not have Ceduna, which means that uv coverages at 1.4 GHz which use
the xNTD will have a very large gap between the east-coast baselines
and the baselines between east and west coasts. This is not good for
calibration or high dynamic range imaging.
At 2.4 GHz having both Ceduna and the xNTD will make a big difference.
Yesterday I was generating uv coverages for my VLBI/MIRA talk next
week, and the benefit of having both Ceduna and xNTD in the array is
substantial.
I guess an alternative would be to get 1.4 GHz on Ceduna. I assume
that this is difficult, as it has not been done yet.
Cheers, Steven
On 3/8/07, Chris Phillips <Chris.Phillips_at_csiro.<!--nospam-->au> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>ATNF has been holding a MIRA/MIRANdA/xNTD design meeting over the last few
>days. The request to do VLBI at 2.4 GHz has been heard and is not yet
>ruled out.
>
>However it is not a trivial thing - there are lots of issues which need to
>be designed in just for VLBI
>e.g. Wider band LBA is lower Tsys
>Complicates IF chain
>Linear vs circular pol
>phase consistency after freq changes etc
>
>How excited is the VLBI group about using MIRA for 2.4 GHz VLBI?
>Can people let me know if you are excited, bored, indifferent etc about
>this prospect? We need to feed back to the design team how important the
>VLBI use is.
>
>Cheers
>Chris
>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:59:23 +1100
Hi Chris,
I think 2.4 GHz is important for the xNTD for VLBI. At 1.4 GHz we do
not have Ceduna, which means that uv coverages at 1.4 GHz which use
the xNTD will have a very large gap between the east-coast baselines
and the baselines between east and west coasts. This is not good for
calibration or high dynamic range imaging.
At 2.4 GHz having both Ceduna and the xNTD will make a big difference.
Yesterday I was generating uv coverages for my VLBI/MIRA talk next
week, and the benefit of having both Ceduna and xNTD in the array is
substantial.
I guess an alternative would be to get 1.4 GHz on Ceduna. I assume
that this is difficult, as it has not been done yet.
Cheers, Steven
On 3/8/07, Chris Phillips <Chris.Phillips_at_csiro.<!--nospam-->au> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>ATNF has been holding a MIRA/MIRANdA/xNTD design meeting over the last few
>days. The request to do VLBI at 2.4 GHz has been heard and is not yet
>ruled out.
>
>However it is not a trivial thing - there are lots of issues which need to
>be designed in just for VLBI
>e.g. Wider band LBA is lower Tsys
>Complicates IF chain
>Linear vs circular pol
>phase consistency after freq changes etc
>
>How excited is the VLBI group about using MIRA for 2.4 GHz VLBI?
>Can people let me know if you are excited, bored, indifferent etc about
>this prospect? We need to feed back to the design team how important the
>VLBI use is.
>
>Cheers
>Chris
>
-- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Assoc. Prof. Steven Tingay Swinburne SKA Project Leader Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies Swinburne University of Technology Mail H39 P.O. Box 218 Hawthorn, Vic 3122 Australia Ph +61 (0)3 9214 8758 Fax +61 (0)3 9214 8797 Email stingay_at_astro.<!--nospam-->swin.edu.au s.tingay_at_optusnet.<!--nospam-->com.au Steven.Tingay_at_gmail.<!--nospam-->comReceived on 2007-03-08 13:59:48