You asked for comments on this data. Overall it looks pretty good to me. I
am not convinced that all the lower level structure you can see in the
images is real but I think the quality is acceptable for the co-polar beams.
I have run my sheets on some of the data and in general I get the very
similar answers (although not exactly the same and I don't know why not).
The results seem to show:
1) the efficiencies are good and appear to meet spec, expect for
2) the polarization is quite poor. What did the cartridge test data show?
3) the beam squint is a little outside the spec - 12.6% of BWHM versus 10% -
again what was seen at IRAM?
I have also run the comparison of the two near-field beams for scan 15.
See attached, which has comment included.
a) A couple of small mysteries for Josh:
b) The signs you give for X and Y offsets seem to be the opposite of mine.
I thought we had fixed that.
In the far-field data for scans 15 and 16 the data is actually identified as
....Oct 2008\band 7\Band7 Oct2008 Scan 20.nsi
'> Josh responded that he had not yet swapped the sign to agree with Richard's spreadsheet, and that scan 20 is simply the name he gave to the offline combination of the two z-settings for scans 15 and 16, as NSI still has not fixed that processing feature.