I agree with Danny, but it's really about what you're trying to say. If this is a plot showing what we will produce with the different stages, then we should cut down the hours. But if we're trying to say, "look we can make a crude image if 37 is all that's funded, but look what we can do with 331!", then I think these are the plots to show it. What exactly is the message supposed to be?
Also, while the "zero-noise" images are interesting to see which modes/scales we're probing, each tier really should be compared to the "true" sky (ie, not filtered), right? -Adam On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:31 AM danny jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: > Its interesting to see the increase in resolution with jump to 350, but > its far more liberal with the observing time than the older study. We > definitely can't promise a 1000 hours for 37. We'll not get anything close > to that until 350 has been running continuously for a couple of years. > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:44 AM, DAVID DEBOER <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I’ve put the figures into fullproposal/plots/imaging (with the earlier >> one) >> >> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:30 AM, Chris Carilli <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Peter put together these simulations of HERA imaging. these seem more >> mature than the imaging simulation that went in the 2014 proposal. >> > >> > chris >> > >> > <Imaging.pptx> >> >> >> > > > -- > ================================================================ > Daniel C. Jacobs > KE7DHQ > National Science Foundation Fellow > Arizona State University > School of Earth and Space Exploration > Low Frequency Cosmology > Phone: (505) 500 4521 > Homepage: http://loco.lab.asu.edu/danny_jacobs/ > MWA: mwatelescope.org > HERA: reionization.org > PAPER: eor.berkeley.edu >
