Re: Random remarks about report

[mel wright 456 <wright@creek2.Berkeley.EDU>]

Barry Clark said:

> p 12.  This bothers me a bit, because these things only translate into
> what the instrument will actually do with the aid of assumptions that may
> not hold for every case.  Somewhere there has to be a bit of software
> that says to itself "OK, this implies 10 seconds integration, correlator
> bandwidths 128, 128, 128, 1000 MHz."  It should then say back to the
> astronomer something like "OK, with the available setups, you will get
> resolutions of 0.06, 0.06, 0.06 km/s, 8 MHz, rejection of objects in the
> skirts of the beam by about 28 db, an integration time smearing in the
> outer parts of your map corresponding to a 6% loss of peak flux for a
> point source, and a data output rate of 37 Gbytes per hour.  Is this
> close enough to what you had in mind?"


Yes, this is how things should work. Should we include something like this
in our report to show others the level of friendliness we expect from the
system?

Nice example, Barry. Good idea Steve - yes put it in the report !