Closed keflavich closed 2 years ago
We will use this one for (offline) training at SHAO
Quick comments: spectral lines in spw 20 & 22 are found on (or out of) the edges of the windows. See snapshots below. There is an SB named 'Sgr_A_st_i_updated_03_7M' in the queue. Does that one have the corrected Vlsr? The 12m array SB 'Sgr_A_st_i_03_TM1' has been completed. Not sure if it uses the correct Vlsr or not.
@xinglunju could you have a look at the continuum identification in the H40a band (I think it's the broad-band window)? In the peak intensity map, this whole field shows up as too-bright, which suggests to me that the continuum is nonzero:
Alternatively, it might not be the continuum, it might be one bright / poorly behaved channel; if it were continuum, I'd expect to see a problem in the moment-0 map, but I do not see that.
I took a quick look at the cube of spw24. Overall, most of the spectra look good, with a baseline level at ~zero. Toward the northwestern part, around the Sgr B2 hot cores, the baseline levels are above zero, but only in a small region, not the whole field.
I guess it is because the image rms is much higher than requested. The measured rms is ~0.1 Jy/beam, while for all the other 7m SBs the rms of this spw is 0.02-0.03 Jy/beam. So this SB should have been marked as QA2 fail, but we should wait for the other SB 'Sgr_A_st_i_updated_03_7M' that has the correct Vlsr anyway...
This SB is used for weblog review training, and probably should not be used for science: it seems to have incorrect Vlsr, and should be replaced with another SB named 'Sgr_A_st_i_updated_03_7M'. Nonetheless, we found the following issues.
Thanks for the detailed summary @xinglunju! Regarding your last point, yes this SB only had one execution and subsequent EBs were cancelled due to the incorrect spectral setup. The execution fraction is 0.2/8.0, so it makes sense that the RMS is not good enough.
This SB is not supposed to be used for science. Should I close this issue? @keflavich
Yes, we can close this and ignore this SB in the future.
The pipeline re-ran on this field last night. I am not sure why; my best guess is I made a typo and removed this one (Xd2
) instead of an adjacent MOUS name (https://github.com/ACES-CMZ/reduction_ACES/issues/247, for example, is Xb2
).
Sgr_A_st_i_03_7M uid://A001/X15a0/Xd2
Product Links:
Reprocessed Product Links: