This is published online (no login required; the conference website), so I think it's kosher to share. Check out slides 23-25. http://lwa.phys.unm.edu/abq2015/talks/deBruyn.pdf
Saul On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Adrian Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > Absolutely, it’s complementary and valuable. It’s definitely a result > that’s not just line-of-sight, and relies on foreground subtraction at low > k’s. The foregrounds were removed using the GMCA algorithm, with 6 > components, though (understandably) during the talk they didn’t go into too > much detail about it. (I had to talk to Ger afterwards to get the number 6). > > Ger will unfortunately not be here on Friday, which is why he had to > present yesterday even though all the other EoR talks are on Friday. > > > On Dec 3, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Chris Carilli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > well, yes and no. the number may not be much different, but, if they are > > doing this in the image domain as well as line of sight, it shows that > > progress can be made in 3D. that is, if the result is believable? I > would > > assume so, given they are presenting in public, but need to see paper. > and > > maybe they are focusing on LoS PS? mantra: 'multiple approaches and > > experiments are good...' > > > > I will be talking about PAPER and HERA at New Mexico Tech physics dept > > today at 4PM, for those in ABQ who might be bored and want to take the > > drive... > > > > I will be in ABQ friday and will try to get some info from Ger. > > > > cc > > > > > > > >> as i mentioned earlier, saleem said that the limits were "PAPER-like", > so > >> nothing revolutionarily new... he also mentioned moving back to the > power > >> spectrum statistic, in lieu of the variance, since the foregrounds were > >> easier to deal with... > >> > >>> On 03.12.2015., at 14.30, Adam Beardsley <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> mK > >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:30 AM Jonathan Pober > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> 20 or 30 mK or mK^2? > >>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Adrian Liu <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> Yes. They have both P(kperp,kpara) limits as well as P(k) limits. No > >>>>> mention of the variance method today. > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 9:42 PM, danny jacobs <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But this is a power spectrum limit rather than with the variance > >>>>>> method? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015, Saul Kohn <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To follow this up, Ger made a LOFAR EoR project overview > >>>>>>> presentation (probably the same one as Dave was mentioning) in > >>>>>>> Albuquerque this afternoon. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They were hazy on the details of power spectrum estimation from > >>>>>>> their images, but he quoted *preliminary* limits of between 20 and > >>>>>>> 30mK for redshifts 7.5 to 10, k~0.05 Mpc^-1 using 155 hours of > data. > >>>>>>> Their estimate on systematics comes from Stokes V, which was at > >>>>>>> levels ~ 10mK, so intersecting with the higher-power EoR models. On > >>>>>>> the slide it quoted "Zaroubi et al. 2016", so I guess we can expect > >>>>>>> to see something official next year. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Saul > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:06 PM, DAVID DEBOER > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> To clarify a bit, I’m not sure that Michiel’s statement > applies > >>>>>>>> to anything new, but rather that there was some possibility that > >>>>>>>> Ger had made a presentation somewhere regarding a limit. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dave > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile > >> > > > > > > > > >
