IRAM Observing School 2007 Clemens Thum IRAM, Grenoble, France Lecture 2 : Fundamentals continued calibration efficiencies beam shape observing modes (single.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Crash Course in Radio Astronomy and Interferometry: 4
Advertisements

NAIC-NRAO School on Single-Dish Radio Astronomy. Arecibo, July 2005
Lecture 11 (Was going to be –Time series –Fourier –Bayes but I haven’t finished these. So instead:) Radio astronomy fundamentals NASSP Masters 5003F -
Calibration Ron Maddalena NRAO – Green Bank November 2012.
ALMA workshop - Leiden, December 18-20th ALMA Bandpass Calibration: Standing Waves Aurore Bacmann (ESO) Stéphane Guilloteau (IRAM)
Distance observations
BDT Radio – 1b – CMV 2009/09/04 Basic Detection Techniques 1b (2009/09/04): Single pixel feeds Theory: Brightness function Beam properties Sensitivity,
Fundamentals of Radio Astronomy Lyle Hoffman, Lafayette College ALFALFA Undergraduate Workshop Union College, 2005 July 06.
FIR Optics Meeting – January Calibration issues related to the optical performances David Teyssier.
BDT Radio – 2b – CMV 2009/10/09 Basic Detection Techniques 2b (2009/10/09): Focal Plane Arrays Case study: WSRT System overview Receiver and.
Radio Telescopes. Jansky’s Telescope Karl Jansky built a radio antenna in –Polarized array –Study lightning noise Detected noise that shifted 4.
Introduction to Radio Telescopes
Introduction to Radio Waves Vincent L. Fish source: Windows to the Universe (UCAR)‏ Image courtesy of NRAO/AUI.
6-1 EE/Ge 157b Week 6 EE/Ae 157 a Passive Microwave Sensing.
Spectral Line Calibration Techniques with Single Dish Telescopes K. O’Neil NRAO - GB.
Lecture 1 By Tom Wilson.
J.M. Wrobel - 19 June 2002 SENSITIVITY 1 SENSITIVITY Outline What is Sensitivity & Why Should You Care? What Are Measures of Antenna Performance? What.
GBT Spectral Baselines – Tuesday, 11 March 2003 GBT Spectral Baseline Investigation Rick Fisher, Roger Norrod, Dana Balser (G. Watts, M. Stennes)
Antennas The primary elements of a synthesis array M. Kesteven ATNF 25/September/2001.
Random Media in Radio Astronomy Atmospherepath length ~ 6 Km Ionospherepath length ~100 Km Interstellar Plasma path length ~ pc (3 x Km)
Calibration Ron Maddalena NRAO – Green Bank July 2009.
Calibration and Data reduction Strategies Cormac Purcell & Ned Ladd Mopra Training Weekend May 2005.
Ninth Synthesis Imaging Summer School Socorro, June 15-22, 2004 Sensitivity Joan Wrobel.
Tenth Summer Synthesis Imaging Workshop University of New Mexico, June 13-20, 2006 Antennas in Radio Astronomy Peter Napier.
P.Napier, Synthesis Summer School, 18 June Antennas in Radio Astronomy Peter Napier Interferometer block diagram Antenna fundamentals Types of antennas.
Spectral Line Calibration Techniques with Single Dish Telescopes K. O’Neil NRAO - GB.
ATCA synthesis workshop - May ATCA – Calibration at mm wavelengths Rick Forster University of California, Berkeley Hat Creek Radio Observatory Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland.
Polarization at IRAM Status and Plans S.Guilloteau Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Bordeaux.
Background and Status of the Water-Vapour Radiometer at Effelsberg A. Roy U. Teuber R. Keller.
Making MOPRA go! Lucyna Kedziora-Chudczer Friend of the telescope (UNSW)
NASSP Masters 5003F - Computational Astronomy Lecture 9 – Radio Astronomy Fundamentals Source (randomly accelerating electrons) Noisy electro- magnetic.
Lecture 12 ASTR 111 – Section 002.
AST 443: Submm & Radio Astronomy November 18, 2003.
Extragalactic Absorption Lines Observed from Arecibo Chris Salter (National Astronomy & Ionosphere Center, Arecibo Observatory, Puerto Rico)
PACS NHSC Data Processing Workshop – Pasadena 10 th - 14 th Sep 2012 Measuring Photometry from SPIRE Observations Presenter: David Shupe (NHSC/IPAC) on.
Phase Referencing Using More Than One Calibrator Ed Fomalont (NRAO)
Adaptive Filters for RFI Mitigation in Radioastronomy
Thoughts on the Design of a WVR for Alan Roy (MPIfR) the Twin Telescope at Wettzell.
Observing Strategies at cm wavelengths Making good decisions Jessica Chapman Synthesis Workshop May 2003.
NHSC HIFI DP workshop Caltech, 7-9 February page 1 Steve Lord Conversions of Intensity Scales and Frequency Units.
1 Problems and Challenges in the mm/submm. 2 Effect of atmosphere on data: Tsys Mean Refraction Phase fluctuations Correction techniques Other facility.
Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array Expanded Very Large Array Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope Very Long Baseline Array Observing Scripts Basic.
Jan URSI1 Fast Switching Phase Compensation for ALMA Mark Holdaway NRAO/Tucson Other Fast Switching Contributors: Frazer Owen Michael Rupen Chris.
Atmospheric phase correction at the Plateau de Bure interferometer IRAM interferometry school 2006 Aris Karastergiou.
BDT Radio – 1b – CMV 2009/09/04 Basic Detection Techniques 1b (2011/09/22): Single dish systems Theory: basic properties, sky noise, system noise, Aeff/Tsys,
Fourth IRAM Millimeter Interferometry School 2004: Atmospheric phase correction 1 Atmospheric phase correction Jan Martin Winters IRAM, Grenoble.
Rick PerleyEVLA Feeds CDR 17 February Performance of the L-Band Feed Rick Perley.
RADAR ANTENNA. Functions of Radar Antenna Transducer. Concentrates the radiated energy in one direction (Gain). Collects echo energy scattered back to.
M.P. Rupen, Synthesis Imaging Summer School, 18 June Cross Correlators Michael P. Rupen NRAO/Socorro.
Brief Introduction to Radio Telescopes Frank Ghigo, NRAO-Green Bank July 2015 Terms and Concepts Parabolic reflector Blocked/unblocked Subreflector Frontend/backend.
Fundamentals of mm Astronomy and Observing Tools ➢ fundamentals and instrumentation ➢ calibration, efficiencies, and observing modes ➢ pointing, refraction,
MWA imaging and calibration – early science results
Cassini Huygens EECS 823 DIVYA CHALLA.
Antennas in Radio Astronomy
Miscellaneous Measurements
Fringe-Fitting: Correcting for delays and rates
Circular Pointing Scans
Beam Measurement Characterization and Optics Tolerance Analysis of a 900 GHz HEB receiver for the ASTE telescope Alvaro Gonzalez, K. Kaneko, Y. Uzawa.
Observing Strategies for the Compact Array
Introduction to Using Radio Telescopes
Imaging and Calibration Challenges
Data Reduction and Analysis Techniques
Data Reduction and Analysis Techniques
Calibration of the ACA System
Detective Quantum Efficiency Preliminary Design Review
Telecommunications Engineering Topic 2: Modulation and FDMA
ALMA Calibration Introduction
Basic theory Some choices Example Closing remarks
MAMBO PRE-LAUNCH CALIBRATION CONSIDERATIONS
8.5 Modulation of Signals basic idea and goals
Presentation transcript:

IRAM Observing School 2007 Clemens Thum IRAM, Grenoble, France Lecture 2 : Fundamentals continued calibration efficiencies beam shape observing modes (single pixel heterodyne Rxs)

C. Thum 2/2 V amb = G (T amb + T Rx ) V sky = G (T sky + T Rx ) V ON = G (T sky + T Rx + T A ) V OFF = G (T sky + T Rx )  V cal = V amb – V sky = G (T amb – T sky ) = G (T amb – T amb (1 – e -  )) = G T amb e -   V sig = V ON – V OFF = G T A = G T A ' e -  Calibration – 1 : basic chopper wheel method Basic idea: T amb V sig V cal T A ' = T A ' is the antenna temperature corrected for atmospheric extinction Note the difference to the y-factor method: T-scale in K, measurement of a second load at different (cold) temperature avoided receiver noise temperature is not obtained

C. Thum 2/3 T cal V sig V cal T A ' = Calibration – 2 : chopper wheel method – better approximations Zero order: T cal = T amb First order: Second order: Higher orders: History of chopper wheel method: invented by Penzias & Burrus in 1973 (ARAA 11, 51) important contributions by NRAO staff (e.g. Kutner & Ulich 1981, ApJ 250, 341) a modified version is implemented at IRAM telescopes: - IRAM report by S. Guilloteau (1987) - “Radio Astronomy Techniques” (D. Downes, IRAM report No. 151, 1988) - detailed description by C. Kramer in “30m Manual” by W. Wild (1994) T amb ≠ T atm and g s ≠ g i T cal = (T amb – T atm )(1 + g i ) e -  s + T atm (1+ g i e  s -  i )  F < 1.0 (forward efficiency) V = G (  F T sky + (1 -  F ) T amb + T Rx ) 3 K background temperature is not always negligible Rayleigh-Jeans approximation not always valid Preconditions: Atmosphere is well behaved receiver gain is sufficiently constant T A ' T A = TA'TA' FF

C. Thum 2/2 calibration – 3 : implementation at 30m telescope T cal V ON - V OFF  V cal T A ' = basic equation: T cal T sys = V OFF  V cal introduce the system temperature: T A ' = T sys on - T sys off calibration factor: T cal =( T amb - T sky ) 1 + g i  e e  = 1 : T sys is on the T A ' scale (not meaningful)  =  F : T sys is on the T A scale (antenna temperature)  =  mb : T sys is on the T mb scale (main beam brightness temperature) User interface PaKo knows two efficiency parameters: F eff and B eff :  set F eff to  F (always)  set B eff to a value in the range from  F to  mb, depending on source size w/r main beam Remarks: - T mb is the scale physically most meaningful - often observers use the T A scale, worry about coupling efficiency later - historically, moon efficiency was also used

C. Thum 2/2 calibration – 4 : calibration measurements at the 30m telescope Chopper wheel method is extended to include a measurement on a cold load input: T HOT sensor T COLD lookup table T AMB meteo station Pressure meteo station Humidity meteo station image gain observer output: T RX T CAL using atm. model T SYS “ pwv “ opacity “

C. Thum 2/4 efficiencies – 1 : forward efficiency  F V sky = G (  F T sky + (1 -  F ) T amb + T Rx ) Now we calibrate and move the antenna in elevation  (skydip) : T A (  ) =  F T atm ( 1 – e -  (  ) ) + ( 1 -  F ) T amb Remark: - since  F can be precisely measured, T A is a very useful concept - T A is the antenna temperature corrected for: (i) atmospheric extinction and (ii) spillover (power not coming from the sky) - when do we make skydips ? only when we are desperate !

C. Thum 2/5 How do we determine  A ? observation of point sources of known flux density easy with big single dish, difficult with interferometer sum up all known losses example: 30m telescope at 1.3mm ohmic losses 0.95 ( ≤ 1% loss per reflection) aperture blocking 0.90 (subreflector, quadrupod) illumination 0.95 misalignment 0.98 surface leakage 0.99 surface roughness 0.50 (rms = /16)  A ≃ 0.40  A = 2 k A TA'TA' S efficiencies – 2 : aperture efficiency  A Definition:  A = A eff A where A is the physical surface area of the antenna (30m: 707 m 2 ) Flux density of a point source: w = k T A ' = ½ S A eff = ½  A A S

C. Thum 2/2 efficiencies – 2: measurement of aperture efficiency ( measured by Juan Peñalver in August 2007 ) Ruze's formula: (  = rms surface roughness)

C. Thum 2/6 efficiencies – 3 : beam efficiency  mb Definition:  mb = AA  mb  mb = main beam solid angle, where P (  ) ≥ 50 % = ∬ mb P( ,  ) d   A = beam solid angle, integrated over 4  = ∬ 4  P( ,  ) d  what is the brightness temperature of a source filling the main lobe? but what if the source is  smaller than  mb ?  larger than  mb ? A eff 2 k S = TA'TA' 2 2 k S = T mb  mb A eff AA 2 = T b = T mb = TA'TA'  mb T b = T mb SS  mb (correction for beam dilution) T b < T mb ( since  mb   F )

C. Thum 2/2 Rayleigh-Jeans correction Rayleigh-Jeans correction factor c : mm (and submm) wavelengths are special in radio astronomy because the Rayleigh- Jeans approximation does not always hold Questions: Observations are made against the CMB of 3 K. How much flux does it contribute in a MAMBO beam? Can MAMBO detect CMB fluctuations? Which temperature do we get when scanning across a planet ? P

C. Thum 2/2 The Jy/K ratio (from IRAM web page) antenna dependent quantities: T A, T A ', T A, T mb physical quantities: S,, T b remarks: - we need to specify the T-scale - the Jy/K ratio is very frequency dependent - simplest way to get to Jy (recommended) note that another useful relation:

C. Thum 2/2 efficeincies – 5 : how do we determine  mb ? (a) measure  mb,  A : impractical (b) measure T A ', T mb : not simple (c) sufficiently accurate fudge:  A A A eff  A = 2 =  mb  mb ⇒  mb =  A A  mb 2 Conclusion:  mb can be measured as accurately as  A Remarks: the calibration scale depends on the beam width through  mb the beam width is not a smooth function of frequency therefore needs to be measured. Feed horns are designed for one frequency.

C. Thum 2/2 beam shape and sidelobes : the error beam derived from scans across the moon's limb (Greve et al. 1998) decomposition into sidelobe components (at 88 GHz)

C. Thum 2/2 error beam : why worry ? M51 CO (2 1) Schuster et al. 2007

C. Thum 2/2 observing modes: why switching ? T sys = T A + T sky + T spillover + T rx T A ≪ T sys (most of the time) T A ≤ 1 K T sky ~ 30 K (at 3mm) T spillover ~ 20 K T Rx ~ 100 K (at 3mm) The enemies: - sky emission fluctuations - receiver gain fluctuations Solutions for single pixel receivers: most of the time - position switching (SWtotal, ONOFF) - wobbler switching (SWwobbler, ONOFF - frequency switching (SWfrequency, TRACK) some of the time - on-the-fly (fast scanning)

C. Thum 2/2 Dicke switching conclusion: balanced receivers are insensitive to gain fluctuations but: switching must be faster than the fluctuations an exact balancing is not always possible, e.g. on-the-fly and: spectroscopic observations are relatively insensitive to gain fluctuations

C. Thum 2/2 observing modes: wobbler switching new consideration: spectroscopic baseline affected by gain fluctuations Rx bandpass is not flat affected by reflections inside the telescope (receiver does not absorb all incoming power) T A,i ' = T sys,i on - T sys,i off WSwitch: 3 cycles interwoven wobbler period of 4 sec cancels most fluctuations telescope nodding : 1min removes standing waves Anti-nodding: 2 min removes slow linear drifts FFT #1 – FFT#2 spectrum

C. Thum 2/2 Observing modes: respective merits Wobbler switching: problems: throw limited by hardware to ±2', gain drops off axis, slow at high speeds and large throws Position switching: pros: large offsets possible (but not reasonable) cons: baselines often poor for too large offsets Frequency switching: pros: time efficient, spares the search for emission-free reference position cons: baselines usually poor, only reasonable for narrow lines (dark clouds) Fast scanning: pros: very useful for mapping, time efficient cons: depends very much on atm. and Rx/Be stability Warning: mesospheric lines !

C. Thum 2/2 Baseline ripple Fabry-Perot effect between reflecting surfaces separation = /2 feed horn does not absorb all incoming power (r F ≃ 0.4) reflected wave may interfere with original wave amplitude of modulation: r r F best known ripples: 7.5 MHz between subreflector and Rx 15.5 MHz between Vertex and Rx 29.2 MHz between Rx and calibration unit 90 MHz between Rx and Martin-Puplett

C. Thum 2/2