[evlatests] RFI sweep June 2015

[Frazer Owen]

On 07/08/2015 05:15 PM, Rick Perley wrote:
> Upon reflection, I rescind my earlier support for a finer frequency 
> resolution.  The BW of the interfering signals should not be different 
> than similar RFI signals at higher frequencies. 125 kHz should be 
> sufficient.
>
>     But, following my usual dictum that 'more is better',  having more 
> channels is certainly not a bad thing, and might reveal something useful.
>
>     Rick
125kHz, I believe is the NRAO default setup 
16subbandsX16MHzX128channels. The most important thing is the 
16subbands, in order to avoid one strong signal from saturating a large 
part of the band.
>
> On 07/08/2015 04:46 PM, Dan Mertely wrote:
>> I would find 125 KHz res to be adequate for our signal
>> ID work.  -Mert
>>
>> On 7/8/2015 1:22 PM, Ken Sowinski wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2015, Huib Intema (NRAO) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since P-band is a standard observing band, and in terms of RFI not
>>>> much worse than other low frequency bands, it would be useful to
>>>> include it in tests like this. This is relevant for both continuum
>>>> observing as (future) spectral line observing.
>>>
>>> I will extend the sweep to P band.  I assume the same spectral
>>> resolution as that used for all the other bands is adequate?
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> evlatests mailing list
>>> evlatests at listmgr.nrao.edu
>>> https://listmgr.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests
>> _______________________________________________
>> evlatests mailing list
>> evlatests at listmgr.nrao.edu
>> https://listmgr.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests
>
> _______________________________________________
> evlatests mailing list
> evlatests at listmgr.nrao.edu
> https://listmgr.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests