Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Execution Block ID uid://A001/X15a0/X100 Sgr_A_st_q_03_TM1 #109

Open
15 tasks done
keflavich opened this issue May 5, 2022 · 7 comments
Open
15 tasks done

Execution Block ID uid://A001/X15a0/X100 Sgr_A_st_q_03_TM1 #109

keflavich opened this issue May 5, 2022 · 7 comments
Assignees
@xinglunju
Labels
Delivered Done! EB Execution Block TM1

Comments

@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor

keflavich commented May 5, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Sgr_A_st_q_03_TM1
uid://A001/X15a0/X100

Product Links:

Reprocessed Product Links:
@keflavich keflavich added EB Execution Block TM1 labels May 5, 2022
@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor Author 

$ ls -lh *X100*
-rw-r--r-- 1 adamginsburg adamginsburg 148G Jun 11 19:58 2021.1.00172.L_uid___A001_X15a0_X100_001_of_001.tar
-rw-r--r-- 1 adamginsburg adamginsburg 1.1G Jun 11 20:00 2021.1.00172.L_uid___A001_X15a0_X100_auxiliary.tar
-rw-r--r-- 1 adamginsburg adamginsburg 3.5K Jun 11 16:52 member.uid___A001_X15a0_X100.README.txt
$ md5sum *X100*
55efd24d96d542a82c8cd0af8ac77c48  2021.1.00172.L_uid___A001_X15a0_X100_001_of_001.tar
f0f6f6ea6d6d1009b1c7e88078b38df5  2021.1.00172.L_uid___A001_X15a0_X100_auxiliary.tar
45243dd5a6a80b5da300bb9d2ff21537  member.uid___A001_X15a0_X100.README.txt
$ tar tvf 2021.1.00172.L_uid___A001_X15a0_X100_001_of_001.tar
$ tar tvf 2021.1.00172.L_uid___A001_X15a0_X100_auxiliary.tar

@keflavich keflavich mentioned this issue Jun 13, 2022
Closed
@xinglunju
Copy link
Contributor

Calibration

  • Three EBs in this data. Spectral features in the phase calibrator J1744 have been properly flagged.
  • step 16. hifa_gfluxscale: the three EBs were executed 4 days apart, but the derived flux of J1744 is different by ~4% (476 mJy vs. 458 mJy). Could this be a problem? Also, the age of the catalog flux for J1744 is more than 180 days old. Shouldn't JAO monitor the flux of J1744 and update their catalog more often than this?
  • step 19. Phase scatter in calibrated phase vs time plots for two EBs. Could be minor, and I have noted it in Tracking of potential calibration problems #178.

Screen Shot 2022-08-24 at 8 26 39 PM

Screen Shot 2022-08-24 at 8 27 26 PM

Continuum imaging

  • step 31. hif_findcont: continuum identification of spw 29, a line is covered.
    uid___A001_X15a0_X100 s31_0 Sgr_A_star_sci spw29 mfs I findcont residual original meanSpectrum mom0mom8jointMask min min 2 50sigma narrow4 trimauto_max=20 overwriteTrue reverted

  • As a result, in 34. hif_makeimages (mfs), the continuum image of spw 29 shows many diffuse features.
    uid___A001_X15a0_X100 s34_0 Sgr_A_star_sci spw29 mfs I iter1 image sky

  • step 36: The aggregate continuum image looks OK, but the beam size could be too large (2.02 x 1.55 arcsec, geometric mean = 1.77").

Line imaging

  • spw 33 is size-mitigated. It has been added to the json file for imaging, but hasn't appeared in globus yet, so I will check its image later.

  • spw 29: QA warning -- MOM8 FC image for field Sgr_A_star spw 29 with a peak SNR of 13.136 indicates that there may be residual line emission in the findcont channels. See the mom0 map below.
    This is related to the findcont issue above.
    uid___A001_X15a0_X100 s38_0 Sgr_A_star_sci spw29 cube I iter1 image mom0_fc sky

  • Beam sizes too large: for spw 25/27/29/31, the beam sizes are 2.43" x 1.86" or even larger. For spw 35, the beam size is also a bit large: 1.99" x 1.52" (geometric mean = 1.74").

  • Almost ~20 point sources in spw25 by eye, likely SiO v=1 masers. Otherwise, images look good.

Remaining issues

  • Reimaging spw 29 and continuum after improving the line-free channel identification?

@xinglunju xinglunju mentioned this issue Aug 24, 2022
Open
@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

keflavich commented Aug 24, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Calibrator flux plots (via https://almascience.nrao.edu/sc/):
image
image

@xinglunju xinglunju added the Needs Reimaging: Missing SPW size mitigation Needs to be reimaged without size mitigation label Aug 30, 2022
@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

@xinglunju could you verify that the re-imaged, un-mitigated cubes exist and look good?

@xinglunju
Copy link
Contributor

Downloaded spw33 cube from globus and it looks great, so I mark this one as done.

@xinglunju xinglunju added Done! and removed Needs Reimaging: Missing SPW size mitigation Needs to be reimaged without size mitigation labels Dec 6, 2022
@xinglunju xinglunju mentioned this issue Dec 8, 2022
Open
@eacmills eacmills mentioned this issue Mar 23, 2023
Closed
@d-l-walker d-l-walker mentioned this issue Jun 7, 2023
Open
@pyhsiehATalma pyhsiehATalma mentioned this issue Jan 31, 2024
Open
@xinglunju
Copy link
Contributor

QA - Line contamination in continuum images from high/low frequencies

Line contamination in spw25_27. Otherwise, the images look good.

Attached images:
Top-left: spw33_35
Top-right: oldhigh_spw33_35
Bottom-left: spw25_27
Bottom-right: spw25_27_29_31_33_35

image

Further checking the mfs continuum images of spw 25 and 27. However they both look good, so not sure which spw is contaminating the spw25_27 image.

Attached images:
Top-left: spw33_35
Top-right: spw25_27
Bottom-left: spw25 mfs
Bottom-right: spw27 mfs

image

@xinglunju
Copy link
Contributor

Updated continuum QA (20240403)

The images look good. No sign of line contamination in spw25_27.

Attached images:
Top-left: spw33_35
Top-right: old spw33_35 (v1.1)
Bottom-left: spw25_27
Bottom-right: spw25_27_29_31_33_35

image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@xinglunju xinglunju

Labels
Delivered Done! EB Execution Block TM1
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@keflavich @xinglunju