Adam Ginsburg's blog

Articles in the bgps category

beam locations & peak fluxes

The results of my distortion mapping work below. Note that, especially for 06, there are a LOT of cases where no beam locations correction (noBL) had a higher peak than the distortion corrected map. I have no explanation for this yet. More work to come...

PEAK COMPARISON BL:       5.95824  noBL:       3.09836    uranus_050619_o23 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       3.93725  noBL:       2.85479    uranus_050619_o24 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       15.5613  noBL:       523.035    neptune_050626_o19 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       16.4601  noBL:       16.0038    neptune_050626_o20 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       426.671  noBL:       375.174    mars_050627_o31 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       415.968  noBL:       413.327    mars_050627_o32  PEAK COMPARISON BL:       15.2464  noBL:       33.8593    uranus_050628_o33 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       34.6631  noBL:       35.5086    uranus_050628_o34 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       164.832  noBL:       403.189    uranus_050904_o31 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       216.820  noBL:       425.613    uranus_050904_o32 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       134.972  noBL:       156.196    uranus_050911_ob8 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       11.0957  noBL:       11.1993    neptune_060602_o30 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       12.0000  noBL:       11.0947    neptune_060602_o31 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       2478.20  noBL:       2365.17    mars_060605_ob1 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       2144.68  noBL:       2147.18    mars_060605_ob2  PEAK COMPARISON BL:       17.7354  noBL:       25.7041    uranus_060621_o29 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       18.7889  noBL:       25.6599    uranus_060621_o30 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       28.1957  noBL:       31.1013    uranus_060625_o46 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       23.0236  noBL:       27.8556    uranus_060905_ob6 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       18.8731  noBL:       28.4964    uranus_060906_o12 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       23.3481  noBL:       29.8294    uranus_060908_o13 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       20.6238  noBL:       26.9424    uranus_060909_o12 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       21.1049  noBL:       28.8533    uranus_060910_o12 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       24.0231  noBL:       32.0877    uranus_060914_o10 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       23.2590  noBL:       33.3496    uranus_060914_o11 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       24.0538  noBL:       30.0552    uranus_060919_ob9 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       355.467  noBL:       669.416    g34.3_070630_o34 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       246.803  noBL:       296.252    g34.3_070630_o35 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       724.874  noBL:       807.152    uranus_070702_o42 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       7.60370  noBL:       9.02960    uranus_070912_o27 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       98.8058  noBL:       88.9957    mars_070913_o22 PEAK COMPARISON BL:       82.2708  noBL:       89.3476    mars_070913_o23

sign errors

2009/02/01

pinned down the problem. Was a minor sign error in the offsets. Why is it that simple sign errors are ALWAYS the hardest things to track down? Now, open question: should x,y scaling be free parameters or not? What I mean is, when I measure the positions of bolometers on the array using the planet map, should I allow the X and Y stretch (the bolometer spacing) to change? Should it be a uniform stretch in X and Y or should it be allowed to 'distort' too? My opinion is, none of the above: I'm measuring their actual positions (in terms of a fixed spacing) and therefore stretching or distorting to match the nominal positions is not necessary.

BL/noBL Mars

Mars using uranus_070702_o42 distortion map:

BL070706_o38_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    134.8757324     -0.2325330      0.0721872   3282.5439453      2.0985703      2.1959550   3147.6682129      2.3311033      2.1237679BL070706_o39_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    188.0588379     -0.0947621     -0.0643225   3782.3984375      2.1416662      1.9909470   3594.3395996      2.2364283      2.0552695BL070706_o40_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    451.6955566     -0.0427303     -0.3303463   3461.9191895      2.1925442      2.0726480   3010.2236328      2.2352746      2.4029944BL070713_o36_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    294.5898438     -0.2068889      0.0493107   5975.9482422      1.9935303      2.1527038   5681.3583984      2.2004192      2.1033931BL070713_o37_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    813.5678711     -0.4597032      0.0361557   5515.4501953      2.0334179      2.1772604   4701.8823242      2.4931211      2.1411047BL070713_o38_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    286.2934570     -0.1904230      0.0520797   5967.7011719      1.9853363      2.1624830   5681.4077148      2.1757593      2.1104033BL070713_o39_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    773.2104492     -0.0816238     -0.3387871   5409.8344727      2.0317609      2.1736624   4636.6240234      2.1133847      2.5124495BL070714_o76_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    244.2031250     -0.2079357      0.0572422   5312.0419922      1.9982606      2.1597764   5067.8388672      2.2061963      2.1025343BL070714_o77_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    688.7365723     -0.1176772     -0.3138330   4706.1503906      2.0379941      2.1989338   4017.4138184      2.1556714      2.5127668BL070715_o45_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    108.5583496     -0.0652246     -0.0818899   2397.9819336      2.1608708      1.9907858   2289.4235840      2.2260954      2.0726757BL070715_o46_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    268.4321289     -0.2927990     -0.0692098   2236.4533691      2.1387808      2.0159581   1968.0212402      2.4315798      2.0851679BL070717_o47_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    372.6528320     -0.2188239      0.0690587   7070.0649414      1.9820960      2.1670835   6697.4121094      2.2009199      2.0980248BL070717_o48_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    498.4628906     -0.2993519      0.0410304   6636.1396484      2.0418782      2.1088474   6137.6767578      2.3412302      2.0678170BL070718_o41_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    287.1591797     -0.2016468      0.0641356   6684.1699219      1.9891322      2.1470959   6397.0107422      2.1907790      2.0829604BL070718_o42_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    841.6083984     -0.0809386     -0.3511798   5934.2832031      2.0332539      2.1427581   5092.6748047      2.1141925      2.4939380BL070725_o34_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    245.6381836     -0.0810674     -0.0582435   5918.6728516      1.9807132      2.1547492   5673.0346680      2.0617807      2.2129927BL070725_o35_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    697.7910156      0.1512802     -0.6174591   4873.1469727      2.3222449      2.0499101   4175.3559570      2.1709647      2.6673691BL070726_o33_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    216.2124023     -0.0697458     -0.0627950   5056.3364258      2.1531394      1.9873902   4840.1240234      2.2228851      2.0501852BL070726_o34_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    433.0415039     -0.0154374     -0.3017542   4586.9204102      2.1483676      2.0385454   4153.8789062      2.1638050      2.3402996BL070730_o23_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    105.4489746      0.1025155     -0.2241490   2679.8452148      2.1567283      1.9786894   2574.3962402      2.0542128      2.2028384BL070730_o24_raw_ds1.nc_indiv0    440.7482910     -0.3968222     -0.0447321   2595.1044922      2.0618360      2.1782801   2154.3562012      2.4586582      2.2230122

distortion mapping failures

2009/01/25

So, despite the fact that I clearly have a distortion mapper working, applying the distortion maps that come out of it do NOT improve the peak or FWHM of the data.

filling factors

2009/01/25

to do: histogram per square degree, plot cumulative > some bin number (100 mJy, 300 mJy, 1 Jy) vs l, then do it again for b=+/-.1, +/-.3.

distortion mapping

2009/01/24

Between sign errors, failures to fit, and.... I really don't know WHAT was going on, I finally figured out how to get the cursed distortion mapping to work. I still haven't even started testing, unfortunately. I don't know why I can fit the way the OP did, fitting R and Theta, and I apparently can't fit x,y. It's frustrating.

Flagger images

2009/01/17

James requested sample images from the flagger for the methods paper. Below are images + description: .. image:: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lsgW26mWZnU/SXHsZcqegtI/AAAAAAAAEs4/3PjUtU2IXtQ/s400/sample_waterfall_070911_o15_highFnoisepng.png This is a "noise-dominated" scan in the sense that the high/low pixels are set by noise, not signal. Despite the clear high frequency noise, this image actually maps out pretty well - I think the high-noise bolometers get downweighted and the high/low pixels probably get clipped by my hot pixel rejection procedure. .. image:: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lsgW26mWZnU/SXHsY7Rgq3I/AAAAAAAAEsY/0NT8IB26JUo/s400/flagger_marked_source_050708_o15.png An image of the galactic center with a source southeast of center identified. .. image:: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lsgW26mWZnU/SXHsYyHCEGI/AAAAAAAAEsg/3iwoklY0--0/s400/sample_waterfall_050708_o15_glitchandsources.png A scan from the GC image above. I forgot to mark the source, I should go back and do that. The glitch is obvious. .. image:: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lsgW26mWZnU/SXHsZHVZ4OI/AAAAAAAAEso/pOXwGFn7rGg/s400/sample_waterfall_050708_o15_glitchflagged.png I drew a box to flag out the region affected by the glitch. .. image:: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lsgW26mWZnU/SXHsZG_MmWI/AAAAAAAAEsw/RA6tqAWMnLM/s400/sample_waterfall_050708_o15_glitchgone.png This is what happens when I redraw after flagging out the glitch - the colorbar is rescaled and no more glitch. .. image:: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lsgW26mWZnU/SXIDILh3hfI/AAAAAAAAEtQ/cMuOhlFO_fA/s400/sample_waterfall_050708_o15_glitchandsources_marked.png Timestream with glitches and sources marked (one pixel in the map is hit by 3 different points in this scan). .. image:: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lsgW26mWZnU/SXIDH3uIjHI/AAAAAAAAEtI/vijTeEWf_nA/s400/sample_waterfall_050708_o15_glitchandsources_gray.png Grayscale version of above (ok, I lied about grayscale being impossible) with a different pixel marked. .. image:: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lsgW26mWZnU/SXIDHbYLbiI/AAAAAAAAEtA/nSh2rM6GhMc/s400/flagger_marked_source_footprint_050708_o15.png A zoom-in around the 'kidney bean' source with the Bolocam footprint overlaid and a pixel marked. Note that this pixel corresponds to the 3 points in the color waterfall above.

0709 rotators fixed, latest run

0709 11-13 needed to be 83.88 degrees, they're all fixed now. I flagged the l060 070911 maps; I'm not convinced that was weather, there were some fluctuations up to 2400 Jy! Maybe a cloud would do that though.

Problems in the latest run:

l359 - missing files?
Reading files from /scratch/sliced/INFILES/l359\_infile.txt
FIELD v0.7\_l359 BEGUN at Fri Jan 16 20:11:34 2009
MRDFITS: File access error
% HEULER: ERROR - First parameter must be a FITS header or astrometry
 structure
l012 - missing files?
% READFITS: ERROR - Unable to locate file
 /scratch/adam\_work/l012/060614\_o10\_raw\_ds5.nc\_indiv13pca\_map01.fi
 ts

More problem maps

2009/01/16

the l060-l062 range has some severe noise problems and rotator issues. They need to be fixed before release.

Uh?

I'm not sure the error reported yesterday is reproducible. Tonight, I started a complete re-mapping of the entire survey. The new mapping will include beam-smoothed maps and more complete header parameters. I need to re-check the L111 mapping. It looks like the region with NGC 7538 in it did alright, but the southeast region didn't do so well. The combined maps are probably better than in any previous iteration, though. Tomorrow's tests will include L024 presumably. It's time to get to work on this stuff. There is definitely a reasonably efficient way to go through all of this stuff; the most difficult part is post-facto error checking. Here are some awk commands I found useful (the \'s are because of VI): `` awk '{printf( $0); if ($2 != 0){ printf(" %4i%4i",$4-443,$5-207) }; if($4!=0){printf(" %4i,%4i",$2-272,$3-742)}; printf("n") }' align/l111_fitslist_shiftfind.txt`` awk '{print $6,$7}' align/l111_fitslist_shiftfind.txt > align/shifts_all_lb.txt One important point: I had to add a parameter to the header file to say whether the current pointing model was used or not. It matters when applying the offsets. Note that since I'm using the pointing model to make all the individual maps, we actually have to stick with this current set of pointing models for all coaligned maps. The current models:

#   Definition of coefficientts:#   start/end mjd are the start/end modified Julian date of a given pointing model#   the 'a' coefficients are for the AZIMUTH OFFSET, the b coefficients are for the ZENITH ANGLE OFFSET#   a0/b0 are constants (e.g. the mean)#   [ab][12] are the 1st and 2nd coefficients of Azimuth.  They have been fiated to zero for most of#   the past year or three.#   [ab][34] are the 1st and 2nd coefficients of Zenith Angle.#   A 'pointing model' is therefore something like this:#   azoff = a0 + a3*alt + a4*alt^2#   altoff = b0 + b3*alt + b4*alt^2##   It is important that the start_mjd/end_mjd be in ascending order##   WARNING: LATER THAN JULY 2007 DEFAULTS TO JULY 2007 WHICH WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN ERRORS!#   I don't have a September 2007 model yet.##   start_mjd      end_mjd               a0              a1            a2              a3             a4                 b0             b1             b2             b3                b4       realdate      53522.5      53582.5       -9.2413685             0.0           0.0   -0.0066354359  -0.0015110883          7.0392221            0.0            0.0   -0.053635657    -0.00047042481       20050601      53614.5      53643.5        84.969583             0.0           0.0      -2.4339154    0.016300937          126.00164            0.0            0.0     -2.4424431       0.015455417       20050901      53887.5      53947.5        9.5305281             0.0           0.0    -0.053191181  -0.0029300592         0.13425019            0.0            0.0     0.48160040     -0.0092814256       20060601      53979.5      54008.5       -98.980381             0.0           0.0      0.65354164   -0.012414466          52.841380            0.0            0.0      1.6705743      -0.020893018       20060901      54101.5      54252.5       -99.078392             0.0           0.0        0.105270   -0.005943491          86.896333            0.0            0.0     0.54257415      -0.011919129       20070101      54252.5      54288         -103.03831             0.0           0.0      0.20972540  -0.0060336987          100.74491            0.0            0.0   0.0099012827     -0.0033331895       20070601#      54288        54313         -99.078392             0.0           0.0      0.10527000  -0.0059434911          86.896333            0.0            0.0     0.54257415      -0.011919129       20070707      54288        54313         -98.803883             0.0           0.0      0.11810246  -0.0051207995          91.720516            0.0            0.0     0.18953269      -0.0078189793       20070707      54313        54500         -99.078392             0.0           0.0      0.10527000  -0.0059434911          86.896333            0.0            0.0     0.54257415      -0.011919129       20070707mjd2date,53522.5 ,y,m,d & print,y,m,dmjd2date,53614.5 ,y,m,d & print,y,m,dmjd2date,53887.5 ,y,m,d & print,y,m,dmjd2date,53979.5 ,y,m,d & print,y,m,dmjd2date,54101.5 ,y,m,d & print,y,m,dmjd2date,54252.5 ,y,m,d & print,y,m,dmjd2date,54288   ,y,m,d & print,y,m,d

« Page 11 / 20 »

Recent Posts

Articles in the bgps category