great work. some comments: 1. we are slowly backing ourselves into a position where it is getting harder to explain-away the 'detections presented as upper limits' (eg fig 6 vs table 1). leaves us open to the standard attack that we don't understand our instrument. not sure what to do about this, but it has become a fairly typical question in talks. any suggestions?
2. the axis labels on many of the plots are sort of unreadable 3. it says 'a slight error resulting in a sub-optimal filter shape' slight seems to be an understatement, given the factor 4 change in the results from the same data. or does the factor 4 stem from other factors as well (integration time?)? can you spell out more clearly the origin in difference in filter shape? is it just a different assumed primary beam shape? 4. fig 6 should probably say in caption the k range averaged over, and might put prediction curves on here for fiducial and cold models of reionization. thanks for the efforts. again, great work, chris > Hi Everyone, > > Here's a draft of a short paper by Matt K. with psa64 multi redshift > points. The redshift 11 points turned out to be more than an order of > magnitude lower than our previous! The processing is basically identical > to > Ali et al but with the updated fringe rate filter. Take a look. Comments, > edits are welcome at every level. > > My thinking is to submit this simultaneously with a short companion paper > comparing with XRay heating models generated by Andrei. Look for that > draft > very soon and I'd be happy to give an update on a datacon. > > Thanks, > ~Danny > > -- > ================================================================ > Daniel C. Jacobs > KE7DHQ > National Science Foundation Fellow > Arizona State University > School of Earth and Space Exploration > Low Frequency Cosmology > Phone: (505) 500 4521 > Homepage: http://loco.lab.asu.edu/danny_jacobs/ > MWA: mwatelescope.org > HERA: reionization.org > PAPER: eor.berkeley.edu >
