[evlatests] Band Nomenclature

[Rick Perley]

    I enter this discussion with some trepidation ...

    There's no satisfactory answer.  Any compact descriptor conveys 
insufficient information for the uninitiated (or untrained) user.  A 
more meaningful descriptor looks like alphanumeric soup.  If we opt for 
the former, then we're probably stuck with the old wartime letter 
codes.  Users will be required to do their homework. 
    If we wanted the latter (and probably it's too late for this, so I'm 
just using up bandwidth here), we'd want a system which conveys the 
coverage of each frequency band.  So I'd go with something like:  1-2, 
2-4, 4-8, ..., 40-50.    Users will only have to be told that the 
numbers are frequency in GHz.  This system fails for P and 4 bands, 
unless we agree to use MHz as the unit -- which then requires far too 
many zeros...  Similarly, a wavelength basis would have to be in 
millimeters ... 

    Rick

Scheduling Officer wrote:
> Well, my take is that neither A band nor Band1 convey any information at 
> all.  Both just serve to mystify the EVLA and ALMA for our non-radio 
> colleagues.  - Joan
> _______________________________________________
> evlatests mailing list
> evlatests at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests
>