[Pafgbt] GBT PAF system assumptions
Scott Ransom
sransom at nrao.edu
Fri Feb 12 11:09:31 EST 2010
Hi All,
I was going to writeup almost exactly what Paul already has. He is right
on the money.
The one thing missing is that both Effelsberg (definitely) and the new
Sardinia telescope (likely) will be doing multi-beam L-band searches of
the Galactic Plane (probably to +/- 3 deg lat or similar). So we wouldn't
have to just beat the Parkes Multibeam survey (or match it in the North),
we'll have to significantly beat Effelsberg and/or Sardinia as well.
Scott
On Friday 12 February 2010 10:54:41 am Paul Demorest wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Just ran a few rough numbers, and it turns out a 1400 MHz PAF pulsar
> survery is actually pretty comparable to the 350 MHz GBT (single-beam)
> survey currently being run by Scott and co. The FoV are almost
> identical. Due to lower sky and rcvr temps, the PAF has better SEFD by
> a factor of ~2-20 (direction dependent), and would have ~2x the BW.
> This is mostly offset by pulsars being typically about 10x fainter at
> 1400 vs 350 MHz. But the PAF definitely wins in the galactic plane.
> The PAF survey would also be sensitive to MSPs out to much higher DM.
>
> So the main motivation for a L-band PAF psr survey would be to find
> pulsars (especially higher-DM MSPs) in the galactic plane. We'll need
> to compare these parameters to past/current work at Parkes to see how
> much telescope time would be needed to beat what has already been
> done.
>
> Another possible consideration is that this is basically a one-shot
> project.. it's a pretty large project, but still, once the deep
> galactic plane survey is done, I don't think there is much other use
> for the feed pulsar-wise.
>
> -Paul
>
> Field of view
> 350: (36')^2 * 1 beam = 1300 arcmin^2
> PAF: (9')^2 * 19 beams = 1500 arcmin^2
>
> T_rcvr
> 350: 50 K
> PAF: 28 K
>
> T_sky
> 350: 0 to ~1000 K
> PAF: 0 to ~10 K
> Direction dependent, highest in gal. plane
>
> Pulsar flux
> S_350 / S_1400 = (350/1400)^-1.7 ~ 10
>
> BW
> 350: 100 MHz
> PAF: 250 MHZ (?)
>
> Max. DM for MSPs
> 350: ~50-100 (~0.5 ms smearing at DM=100)
> PAF: ~500-1000 (dependent on Nchan)
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Rick Fisher wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > Could someone do an analysis for the optimum pulsar frequency for an
> > array feed? In the meantime, is it possible to say whether there is
> > strong interest in a PAF on the GBT for pulsar work near 1400 MHz?
> > I've been assuming there is, but the original science case is nearly
> > 10 years old.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Paul Demorest wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Rick Fisher wrote:
> >>> To begin getting a handle on the constraints and options for a GBT
> >>> PAF system design, let me list some assumptions that we might
> >>> adopt. Feel free to argue with any of these and suggest
> >>> alternatives. The immediate objective is to get the options on the
> >>> table.
> >>>
> >>> Rick
> >>>
> >>> 1. Because data rate, storage, and management will always be
> >>> primary limiting factors in PAF science output, system temperature
> >>> and aperture and beam efficiency of each beam will be top
> >>> priorities. The goal for system temperature divided by aperture
> >>> efficiency is 28 K for all beams that are formed and processed.
> >>> The first array on the GBT may not meet this goal, but front-end
> >>> development will continue at least until this goal is achieved.
> >>> The first array on the GBT will be cryogenic.
> >>>
> >>> 2. The first array on the GBT will be have 19 dual-polarized
> >>> elements. It will be optimized for the HI line at 1.42 GHz and
> >>> cover at least 1.3-1.5 GHz. This frequency range is bounded by the
> >>> radar at 1.292 GHz and the satellite band at 1.52-1.57 GHz.
> >>> Another array will need to be built to cover the 1.7-2.3 GHz band
> >>> preferred by pulsar observers when sufficient beamforming bandwidth
> >>> becomes available.
> >>
> >> 1.7-2.3 GHz might not be the best pulsar band for this feed. I
> >> think it mainly became the standard for the GBT because the
> >> (3-level) spigot was so sensitive to RFI at the lower L-band freqs.
> >> With higher dynamic range instruments it might make sense to move
> >> down in freq where pulsars are stronger and survey speed goes up.
> >> someone will have to do a real analysis of all these factors
> >> though...
> >>
> >> -Paul
> >>
> >>> 3. Ultimately we want to digitize the signal from each array
> >>> element in the front-end box for greatest phase and amplitude
> >>> stability and lower cable weight of optical fibers. However, the
> >>> first array will use 38 coaxial cables to carry the element signals
> >>> into the GBT receiver room. These cables should have sufficiently
> >>> low loss and outer shield leakage to carry signals frequencies up
> >>> to 2.3 GHz so that they can transfer either IF or RF signals to the
> >>> receiver room.
> >>>
> >>> 4. A phase and amplitude monitor signal will be distributed in the
> >>> front-end box and injected into the signal path of each element
> >>> after the cryogenic LNA. (A signal transmitted to the array from
> >>> an antenna somewhere in the dish is subject to multi-path
> >>> distortions that make it an unreliable primary calibrator, at least
> >>> until its reliability can be validated against the directly
> >>> injected calibrator. Calibrator injection immediately ahead of the
> >>> LNA would degrade noise performance. Experience with single-beam
> >>> GBT receivers indicates that the LNAs are stable enough to be left
> >>> outside of the phase and amplitude monitor loop.)
> >>>
> >>> 5. The long-range plans are to locate the beamformer electronics
> >>> in the Jansky laboratory. This offers the greatest room for growth
> >>> and minimizes the problems of space, weight, and EMI in the GBT
> >>> receiver room. However, the first beamformer with modest bandwidth
> >>> will be located in the GBT receiver room so that its implementation
> >>> is not dependent on transmitting its input signals to the Jansky
> >>> lab. [Can fewer ROACH boards accommodate 38 lower speed ADCs?]
> >>>
> >>> 6. A 250-MHz bandwidth beamformer that uses 20 ROACH boards and 20
> >>> iADC boards plus ethernet switch and associated electronics and
> >>> power supplies is too big and noisy for the GBT receiver room.
> >>> This should be planned for installation in the Jansky lab.
> >>>
> >>> 7. We'll vigorously develop digitizers and digital fiber links
> >>> that allow signals from the array elements to be transmitted to the
> >>> Jansky lab on digital fiber links, but we don't want this to be on
> >>> the critical path to implementing a wider bandwidth beamformer. An
> >>> alternative solution will be to install commercial 0.9-2.2 GHz
> >>> analog fiber modems to transmit RF signals directly to the lab.
> >>> The feasibility of such a solution depends on it being stable
> >>> enough to be tracked with the phase and amplitude monitoring
> >>> system. Two modem pairs are in hand, and tests of them on fibers
> >>> between the GBT and the lab will begin soon. Each modem pair costs
> >>> about $2K, and a set to handle 38 signal paths will cost about $80K
> >>> so we need to be certain that it will offer significant scientific
> >>> pay-off before taking this option. Note that the modems in hand do
> >>> not work below 900 MHz so they would not transmit low-frequency IF
> >>> signals from the BYU receiver modules currently under construction.
> >>> Analog modems that work at lower frequencies are available, but
> >>> they may be more expensive.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Pafgbt mailing list
> >>> Pafgbt at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> >>> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/pafgbt
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pafgbt mailing list
> > Pafgbt at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> > http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/pafgbt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pafgbt mailing list
> Pafgbt at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/pafgbt
>
--
Scott M. Ransom Address: NRAO
Phone: (434) 296-0320 520 Edgemont Rd.
email: sransom at nrao.edu Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
GPG Fingerprint: 06A9 9553 78BE 16DB 407B FFCA 9BFA B6FF FFD3 2989
More information about the Pafgbt
mailing list