Status of Beams L. Page & C. Barnes et al.

Why do we need to model the beams? Computing solid angles (T_jup) & windows from the raw maps depends on the cut-off. How one treats the transition to noise dominates the error on the answer. Fitted beams are conditioned by correlation length of deformations. Calculations are easier and errors can be assessed. They also allow one to understand the deformations in the beam. Fits give SA, amplitude, and beam shape.

Contours: 0.09, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 Contours: 0.06, 0.09, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 Contours: 0.03, 0.06, 0.09, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 K Ka, Q V, W

Solid angle most difficult thing to get right. Baseline subtraction critical. A/B integrals of beam as a function of angle Integrated offset

Beams “clean” beyond deg in agreement with measured correlation length and Ruze theory. Can restrict all fits to inside 1.1 to 1.4 deg --based on physical arguments

AP_INT_V5 Status All W-band beams processed. 17 parameter fit, 14 for surface. Complicated covariance structure. Different surface for each beam. Can be misguided by near-field current distribution.

Compare symmetrized beams Model vs “Raw” pixelized beams

Rms Lambda/7

All 32 W detectors Every two should be the same Expect a slope in the spectrum but the maps are not quite there. Need fits to individual channels

Janet Raw sym Raw Model W-band window comparison 0.23 deg Symmetry conjecture….

Other Issues & Next steps Pointing: A/B sides are not back to back symmetric. Almost like TRS is split open. Bin on 0.3 deg and use pixel win to check the low l parts of the windows. AP_INT routines on smaller target region. Polarization/3/4 consistency. Get better beams. Rt 2 matters here! Offset subtraction is critical. Full surface modeling with DADRA (Chris)