Difference between revisions of "Instrument Paper Comment"

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 15: Line 15:
=== Telescope design ===
=== Telescope design ===
# comments
# Table 2-1: BICEP array info need to be added
=== Receiver optics ===
=== Receiver optics ===

Revision as of 16:01, 29 May 2017

Please add comments in appropriate section: You can also send comments to Aritoki Suzuki at asuzuki@berkeley.edu

LATEX style

  1. Bunch of \newcommand (and similar) defined after \begin{document} in the cmbs4_instbook.tex, although it doesn't seem to cause any failures, it feels like many of those commands should live in the preamble. See for example the ADS abbreviations. It would be useful to clean up this file to improve readability. I think it generally makes it easier for people to contribute to the document.

General comment


Acronym Table: Bibliography


Introduction and Conclusion


Telescope design

  1. Table 2-1: BICEP array info need to be added

Receiver optics

  1. The beginning of section 3.6 has a long, useful introduction. Sections 3.5 and 3.7 are much more terse. I kinda liked the 3.6 intro...
  2. Throughout; inconsistent use of \sim and \approx for rough #s.

Focal plane optical coupling

  1. The hyphenation usage is still a mess: band-width, bandwidth, band with, is one example, but there are many more.
  2. The use of the oxford comma is inconsistent
  3. Is it “a” with bandwidth ratio (e.g., "3:1 bandwith ratio” or “a 3:1 bandwidth ratio”)?

Focal plane sensor and readout

  1. Title requires hyphen or not?
  2. A statement in the introduction on detectors and readout which claimed MKIDs would not need a lot of development for implementation in S4. I believe this was written in the context of multiplexing and not sensing. This needs rewording