From:	SMTP%"mozurk@nrl.navy.mil"  "David Mozurkewich" 17-APR-2003 15:03:58.67
To:	dpeterson@astro.sunysb.edu
CC:	
Subj:	Re: NPOI bandpasses

X-Authentication-Warning: oib.nrl.navy.mil: mozurk owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:08:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Mozurkewich <mozurk@nrl.navy.mil>
To: <dpeterson@astro.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: NPOI bandpasses
In-Reply-To: <030417120245.2520645e@astro.sunysb.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0304171450540.2080-100000@oib.nrl.navy.mil>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 dpeterson@astro.sunysb.edu wrote:

> Do you have a data statement lying around giving the bandpass
> boundaries for the NPOI channels?  I asked Christian, but he's not
> good about responding to those kinds of requests.  I've been using
> equal spacing in wavenumber in the meantime, but that's a bit crude
> for the real reductions.

Deane,

I have something that is worse than one data statement;  I have three data
statements.  I list all three below.  I believe the first column is from
the original design.  This is an equilateral BK7 prism.  The second column
was shifted by a bit to put HeNe at the center of a channel.  This makes
it easier to align and is the configuration we have always used for normal
observations.  The third column we use for H-alpha observations.  I know
little about the heritage of these wavelengths.

       design  reg    H-alpha
  1    849.4  852.2   862.2
  2    820.9  822.0   831.6
  3    793.9  794.2   803.5
  4    768.3  768.5   777.5
  5    744.2  744.8   753.5
  6    722.9  722.8   732.5
  7    701.5  702.3   710.5
  8    683.1  683.2   691.2
  9    664.6  665.4   673.2
 10    648.9  648.7   656.3
 11    631.9  633.0   640.4
 12    617.7  618.3   625.5
 13    603.5  604.5   611.6
 14    590.7  591.4   598.3
 15    577.9  579.1   585.9
 16    566.5  567.5   574.1
 17    556.6  556.5   563.0
 18    545.2  546.1   552.5
 19    535.2  536.2   542.5
 20    526.7  526.8   533.0
 21    518.2  517.9   524.0
 22    509.6  509.4   515.4
 23    501.0  501.3   507.2
 24    494.0  493.7   499.5
 25    485.5  486.3   492.0
 26    478.4  479.3   484.9
 27    472.7  472.7   478.2
 28    465.6  466.3   471.8
 29    460.1  460.2   465.6
 30    454.2  454.4   459.7
 31    448.4  448.8   454.1
 32    442.8  443.5   448.7

> There is a good set of high resolution limbdarkening calculations
> published for Solar composition ATLAS models, I just have to average them
> down to the specific passband set.  I assume at this point you simply
> use hat-function response curves, but I'll try to make the averaging
> code general enough to easily include specific measurements when
> they're available.

Great.  I may be interested in that data set at some time in the future.

Right, we use top hats.  There are times when I think that is a real good
approximation and time when I am sure it is not.

> I haven't heard yet from NSF on the proposal, they say 6-months, which
> is mid May.  But I would like to go ahead with the measurements of
> Vega and Altair.  That would be the pilot project (besides the big
> splash) to go back to NSF for a much bigger project.

I am looking forward to that.  We'll do the observations regardless, but
money always helps.

Dave


