--
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