[mmaimcal] Munich

[Bryan Butler]

>It is not clear to me why there needs to be some (small) hard limit to
>subarrays such as 4 - is there a good explanation on how they are
>implemented?

i agree, but d'addario had argued very strongly to limit the number
of possible subarrays.  we went over and over this, with the scientists
saying it wasn't enough, and larry saying the number had to be explicitly
defended, and us defending the number, and larry saying it cost too
much, etc...  this may have been before you got here, steve.  i thought
we had convinced larry that we needed *at least* 5, and possibly more,
though?  4 seems awfully restrictive to me.

>It seems ludicrous to use one antenna in single-dish mode.  Why would you
>add in single-dish data with much worse noise level if your desire is
>to actually improve the images?  My guess (purely a guess) is something
>like sqrt(N) = 8 for N=64 antennas is the minimum...

i don't know about 8 being the limit, but i agree that 1 is *way*
too small.  how does stephane think that the data from only 1 antenna
will be used?  if you only have 5 antennas in your array (ala IRAM
or OVRO), then adding in data from 1 dish *might* make sense.  if you
have 64 antennas, it makes no sense (to me at least).

	-bryan