Return to Deconvolution

I ran the v0.7 reductions with deconvolution on for 50 iterations. I had cut out deconvolution originally because of the funky noise maps, but that was partly an error on my part. There is also an issue with bright sources being largely left over in the noise maps.

The deconvolver does MUCH better at filtering out the fuzzy atmospheric emission, so I want to use it. It leaves some flux from bright point sources behind, though, so I decided to try to make the deconvolution kernel smaller to see if that recovers more of the pointlike flux.

planet fluxes

; ephemerides from the JCMT
; MARS:
; June 30 2005: 730.14 Jy UT:53551
; July 15 2005: 872.83 Jy UT:53566
; Sept 10 2005: 1941.72 Jy UT:53623
; June 5 2006: 553.13 Jy UT:53891
; June 23 2006: 674.14 Jy UT:53544
; Sept 10 2006: 135.79 Jy UT:53896
; July 20 2007: 381.18 Jy UT:54301
; Sept 10 2007: 597.87 Jy UT:54353
;
; URANUS:
; June 30 2005: 43.43 Jy UT:53551
; July 15 2005: 44.35 Jy UT:53566
; Sept 10 2005: 45.78 Jy UT:53623
; June 5 2006: 41.71 Jy UT:53891
; June 23 2006: 42.96 Jy UT:53544
; Sept 10 2006: 41.62 Jy UT:53896
; July 20 2007: 43.90 Jy UT:54301
; Sept 10 2007: 45.57 Jy UT:54353
;
; NEPTUNE:
; June 30 2005: 17.42 Jy UT:53551
; July 15 2005: 17.58 Jy UT:53566
; Sept 10 2005: 17.50 Jy UT:53623
; June 5 2006: 17.04 Jy UT:53891
; June 23 2006: 17.33 Jy UT:53544
; Sept 10 2006: 17.09 Jy UT:53896
; July 20 2007: 17.59 Jy UT:54301
; Sept 10 2007: 17.56 Jy UT:54353

Rant: calc_beam_locations

It took me a few days to figure this out, but "calc_beam_locations" is about 800 lines of wasted space. It does nothing substantive until line 335. Everything to that point is parameter parsing. But there doesn't need to be any of that crap, really, and it should have been outsourced to functions to begin with.

NCDF files are read to get the rotation angle - JUST as an error check! There is no a priori reason to include it.

All that the code does is read in a centroid file (a list of x,y offsets), rotate them, and output them as r,theta,error. Sure, there's a bunch of automated outlier rejection etc, but... seriously?! We don't have enough observations to hold up the statistics necessary for that to begin with! NO ONE would if each observation takes an hour. It's absurd. Odd as it is coming from me, manual rejection makes a lot more sense in this case.

Now, I still have to understand WHY the beam locations are rotated by the fiducial array angle.

distortion mapping done?

Created 'beam_locations_0707.txt' from uranus_070702_o42 with a few contributions from g34.3_070630_o34.

The rest were created by averaging over all of the beam location files

0707 distortion maps

They're consistent but not very close to each other.

sign errors

pinned down the problem. Was a minor sign error in the offsets. Why is it that simple sign errors are ALWAYS the hardest things to track down?

Now, open question: should x,y scaling be free parameters or not? What I mean is, when I measure the positions of bolometers on the array using the planet map, should I allow the X and Y stretch (the bolometer spacing) to change? Should it be a uniform stretch in X and Y or should it be allowed to 'distort' too? My opinion is, none of the above: I'm measuring their actual positions (in terms of a fixed spacing) and therefore stretching or distorting to match the nominal positions is not necessary.