[mmaimcal] Re: [Almasci] Two antennas

[Mark Holdaway]

I will note that there is a HUGE difference in the cost, both in terms
of manpower to write software and in CPU time, to use different beam 
models for each
antenna as opposed to using a common model.  That is the sort of thing
that must be specified explicitly.

    -M

John Richer wrote:

>Hi Debra,
>
>Yes, the requirements you quote are the ones I was looking at.  I agree
>that the intent is somewhat ambiguous as written.  I'm sure someone here
>can elaborate.  I did look for the AIPS++ audit that ALMA did to see if
>ths shed any light, but I couldn't locate it. 
>
>However I think the intention here is surely to allow different primary
>beam responses, given that we are trying to push these dishes up to very
>high frequencies where the beam efficiency gets rather modest, and where
>beams will necessarily vary from dish to dish no matter which vendor it
>came from.
>
>  OL 5.3-R2 Careful (polarized) primary beam correction and pointing 
>  correction is critical for high fidelity mosaic imaging and must be 
>  incorporated into the mosaicing algorithms.  Priority 1.
>
>     OL-5.3-R2.2 A set of ALMA standard beam images will be made
>     available by the project and distributed with the Package, with
>     updates available for download when appropriate. Priority: 1
>
>     OL-5.3-R2.3 The user shall be able to specify the primary beam in a
>     number of forms, both analytic and tabular, in addition to the ALMA
>     provided primary beam. Priority: 2
>
>John
>
>
>  
>