A results and Fw: [alma-config] Fw: Set of imaging and UV results for C arrays onSIL images

[Steven]

Hello. John raised some good points to which I have responded as below. I
will be regenerating the pages to take account of robust weighting etc.

In the meantime I had already calculated everything on the existing basis
for the A arrays, so I am uploading that temporarily.
See below...

> The results are presented on the web pages listed below (please use this
> message as an index till I write an actual index page)
> and are separated into pages showing UV results and pages showing imaging
> results.
>
> For the imaging results, there is a page per SIL image per configuration
> (i.e. A, C, or E) for snapshots and tracks separately. On each page the
> results for the K(ogan) and C(onway) results are shown side by side, and
> show contour plots of the the dirty map and grey scale plots of the dirty
> map for each of the declinations simulated, i.e. +25, -23 and -70.
> These pages are the first 10 in the list below- what you want from the
name
> is that it starts with IM, what image is being simulated (i.e. the name
> contains MAR, MPD, CYG, M51 or SDC) and whether it contains SN or _4
> denoting snapshot or 4 hour track respectively. Don't worry about the rest
> of the name.
>
> For the UV results, there is a page per declination per configuration (i.e
> A, C, or E) for snaphots and tracks separately. The results for the K and
C
> arrays are shown side by side, and show the UV distribution, histogram of
> baselines, contour plot to 10% of dirty beam, grey scale plot to 10% level
> of dirty beam, and four slices though the dirty beam at 0, 45,
> 90 and 135 degrees.
> These pages are the last 6 in the list below- what you want from the name
is
> that it starts with UV, what declination it contains (the +25, -23, or -70
> part), and whether it is snapshot or track (SN or _4). Don't worry about
the
> rest of the name. >
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/IMxACYGSN/IMxACYGSN.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/IMxACYG_4/IMxACYG_4.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/IMxAM51SN/IMxAM51SN.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/IMxAM51_4/IMxAM51_4.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/IMxAMARSN/IMxAMARSN.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/IMxAMAR_4/IMxAMAR_4.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/IMxAMPDSN/IMxAMPDSN.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/IMxAMPD_4/IMxAMPD_4.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/IMxASDCSN/IMxASDCSN.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/IMxASDC_4/IMxASDC_4.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/UVxAM51SN+25b7/UVxAM51SN+25b7.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/UVxAM51SN-23b7/UVxAM51SN-23b7.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/UVxAM51SN-70b7/UVxAM51SN-70b7.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/UVxAM51_4+25b7/UVxAM51_4+25b7.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/UVxAM51_4-23b7/UVxAM51_4-23b7.html
> http://www.stevenheddle.co.uk/ALMA/SIL/UVxAM51_4-70b7/UVxAM51_4-70b7.html

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven <steven at heddle97.freeserve.co.uk>
To: John Conway <jconway at ebur.oso.chalmers.se>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [alma-config] Fw: Set of imaging and UV results for C arrays on
SIL images


> Hello John, thanks for your comments, which I will address in order...
>
>
> >  I had a look at your page. Some points
> >
> > 1) Looking at the slices through the long -track synthesised beams there
> > are large negatives, I think this can only mean that you havn't used
> > true natural  weighting and is what we agreed to simulate in Tuscon,
> > such natural weighting gives the maximum
> > sensitivity and  uses UVWFT  = 'NA' and ROBUST=5; note that I think
> > both UVWGT and  ROBUST need to be set to get true natural weighting.
>
> Curses, I believe you are correct, which is a shame given I have just done
> all the results for the A array in exactly the same way...
> I'll put my best man on it straight away.
>
> > 2) I think the beam greyscale upper level for the long tracks should be
> > 5% not 10%, I don't see much detail with the 10% plots.
>
> I agree, and unless the brightness is maxed on the computer monitor you
> hardly see anything at all. I'll make this change.
>
> >
> >
> > 3) When I go to one page and then try to navigate to others by
> > going up a level in the 'Go To' box it doesn't give me access, I guess
> > you could simply add a page at a higher levek with a list of all the
> > simulations which one can click on.
>
> That's what will happen. The index page hasn't been written, and I freely
> admit that the latex2html generated buttons don't take you anywhere, and
> will not in the future either. Once the index page is there however, it
will
> just be a matter of using the 'back' button in the browser.
>
> >
> > 4) I agree that plots for the images should be logarithmic. The
> > dirty image plots are OK but whats the timetable
> > for producing the CLEAN images and the  error images (result -
> > true image)? Are you going on vacation in August?
> >
>
> I'll change the image plots to log. Re. CLEANing, I have been trying to
> winkle out of the working group opinions on parameters, and have no
response
> from anybody other than yourself, so I will run a couple past you then
> present a vast block as a fait accompli to the group. I could do with some
> pointers on producing the error images, in particular on any scaling that
> should take place, but once the basic recipe is in place, it could be done
> for all the configurations and images in a week approx. Re. holidays, yes,
I
> hope to slope off for a week or two from the last week of this month. If
the
> CLEANing hasn't been done I will at least have a CD of FITS images in the
> post to everybody who wants them.
>
>