2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10686-017-9565-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Main beam modeling for large irregular arrays

Abstract: Large radio telescopes in the 21 st century such as the Low-Frequency Array (LOFAR) or the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) make use of phased aperture arrays of antennas to achieve superb survey speeds. The Square Kilometer Array low frequency instrument (SKA1-LOW) will consist of a collection of non-regular phased array systems. The prediction of the main beam of these arrays using a few coefficients is crucial for the calibration of the telescope. An effective approach to model the main beam and first few si… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While it would be possible to construct a more general perturbation scheme, for example using a 2D Zernike polynomial basis, principal component representations, or similar (e.g. Bui- Van et al 2017;Eastwood et al 2018;Iheanetu et al 2019;Sekhar et al 2019), our goal here is to minimise the number of additional parameters that must be introduced to the beam model, and to directly connect these parameters to physical effects. Directly perturbing a general polynomial representation of the beam would typically require the coefficients to be adjusted in specific, highly-correlated ways in order to model different effects, since small changes to individual coefficients tend to result in wildly different beam patterns that do not correspond to realistic beam variations.…”
Section: Models Of Primary Beam Non-redundancymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While it would be possible to construct a more general perturbation scheme, for example using a 2D Zernike polynomial basis, principal component representations, or similar (e.g. Bui- Van et al 2017;Eastwood et al 2018;Iheanetu et al 2019;Sekhar et al 2019), our goal here is to minimise the number of additional parameters that must be introduced to the beam model, and to directly connect these parameters to physical effects. Directly perturbing a general polynomial representation of the beam would typically require the coefficients to be adjusted in specific, highly-correlated ways in order to model different effects, since small changes to individual coefficients tend to result in wildly different beam patterns that do not correspond to realistic beam variations.…”
Section: Models Of Primary Beam Non-redundancymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this way, the input data to BayesEoR exclusively contain information about the sky on the scales accessible to the forward model. However, real instruments are in general sensitive to emission from horizon to horizon due to the primary beam response of the antennas 2 (Fagnoni et al 2021;Virone et al 2021;Line et al 2018;Mort et al 2017;Bui-Van et al 2017). Visibilities from a real instrument thus contain information about the entire sky.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A common challenge of phased‐array radio telescope systems is the characterization and calibration of the phased‐array antenna pattern, which can change significantly depending on the pointing direction on the sky. Substantial effort has been made to form predictive models of the phased‐array response (e.g., Bui‐Van et al., 2017, 2018; Sokolowski et al., 2017; Sutinjo, O'Sullivan, et al., 2015; Warnick et al., 2018), which in turn requires an accurate electromagnetic model of the elements in the phased‐array, including mutual coupling effects. Work to characterize the element or primary beam pattern of the telescope includes the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) with radio transmitters, low earth orbit satellites and astronomical sources (Bolli et al., 2016; Jacobs et al., 2017; Line et al., 2018; Neben et al., 2015; Sutinjo, Colegate, et al., 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%