I'll have to poke around and see what I can come up with. As I think I mentioned earlier, a ROACH board fails immediately after the observation I sent you, causing 1 of every 8 frequency channels to be missing in subsequent data. The compression kind of washes this effect out, so it may be that you can use more of what we have.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Chris Carilli <[email protected]> wrote: > would be interesting to see how far we could push the 'confusion noise' > primary beam measurement. I am sure this would never be an accurate way of > measuring the primary beam, but it could serve as a quick and easy way to > get a handle of the gross size and shape of the mean primary beam from > first images of eg. HERA, in the absence of more involved processes. > > to test the idea further, what I would need data sets within like +/- > 15min of a transit time when the Sun, Cygnus a, and Galactic plane are all > down. looks like in the data i got from Jonnie, the latest file (63640) the > Gal plane is 60 deg past transit. if there were time ranges a bit later, > but before sunrise, that would be tremendous. > > I would need the format that Jonnie generated -- compression and first > calibration pass. might be useful to have all the imaging data converted > into FITS files, so as others analyze how they see fit? doesn't take a lot > of space, but might take some time to convert? > > chris > > > On 11/26/2014 02:16 PM, Saul Kohn wrote: > > That's a question for the "paperdata" database... > > There's raw data on Julian days 2455742 thru 2455749 in > /data3/paper/psa/Jul2011/ (except for psa745, which seems to be in > /data4/raw_data/Jul2011/...) > > Check-out > https://github.com/immanuelw/paperdata/blob/master/table_descr.txt, which > points you to at least the raw data. I don't know where the compressed > stuff is... > > > Saul Aryeh Kohn > > PhD student > University of Pennsylvania > ----------------------------------------- > ZOO > David Rittenhouse Laboratory > 209 South 33rd Street > Philadelphia PA, 19104 > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:57 PM, danny jacobs <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> hm, thats an interesting idea, though we probably have to integrate >> longer to get to confusion limit far out in the beam... Would need a good >> many repeated nights. Can't remember how many 64 imaging nights we got. >> James? >> > >
