Etime study: Difference between revisions
From CASA Guides
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{| style="width: 100%; valign: top; background-color:#E0FFFF; border:1px solid #3366FF; " cellpadding=1 | {| style="width: 100%; valign: top; background-color:#E0FFFF; border:1px solid #3366FF; " cellpadding=1 | ||
| etime | |||
| uv | |||
| ch6 image | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | 10s | ||
| | | (indistinguishable from 30s) | ||
| | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | 15s | ||
| | | (indistinguishable from 30s) | ||
| | |||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 20:17, 8 June 2010
Naturally, one would run a simulation with a short integration time (~3s-10s) to calculate visibilities at complete uv coverage and density. However, corrupting with thermal noise is (currently - we're working on it) quite slow, and such a simulation can take hours to run. We suggest that you increase the integration time by up to an order of magnitude - if you have a long track with ALMA, the uv coverage will still be quite realistic, and the simulation will run an order of magnitude faster.
Here is an example of the M51 simulation (8hr track) with 10, 15, 30, 120, and 240s integration times, and the correspondingly decreasing number of time samples in the Measurement Set:
| etime | uv | ch6 image |
| 10s | (indistinguishable from 30s) | |
| 15s | (indistinguishable from 30s) |
