-- StevenWhite - 14 Jun 2007

Al Wotten: "For ammonia studies, IMHO it would be useful to get several (J=K) lines to characterize temperature. To get two para lines one would need (3,3) and (6,6) (25.056 GHz). This is useful only for very hot regions. For density the only way to measure with ammonia is to use (2,1), which is at 23.098 GHz. I think the minimum should be 2 GHz. The (2,1) line is weak. One could consider doing it separately, then 1.5 GHz would cover the (J=K) lines but I'd favor breadth. " 6/8/2007

Larry Morgan: "A lot of people will want to map Ammonia in (1,1) and (2,2) as well as CCS, 1.5 GHz just allows this, I wouldn't be happy with anything less for this reason." 6/8/2007

Ron Maddalena: "Roughly, the science one can do is proportional to bandwidth. So, the more we have the better." 6/8/2007

Matt Morgan: "The cost of wider bandwidths is almost entirely in the digital processing. For the analog hardware 2 GHz bandwidth is just as easy as 1 GHz. So unless you want to do all 8 GHz at once, it really just comes down to data rate, and I believe that's more of a cost issue than a technical one. The digital guys could probably give us a better estimate of the cost tradeoff." 6/9/2007

Topic revision: r1 - 2007-06-14, StevenWhite
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding NRAO Public Wiki? Send feedback