Difference between revisions of "Instrument Paper Comment"

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 19: Line 19:
 
=== Receiver optics ===
 
=== Receiver optics ===
 
# 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...
 
# 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...
# Throughout; inconsistent use of \sim and \approx for rough #s.
 
  
 
=== Focal plane optical coupling ===
 
=== Focal plane optical coupling ===

Revision as of 00:49, 1 June 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

  1. comments

Acronym Table: Bibliography

  1. comments

Introduction and Conclusion

  1. comments

Telescope design

  1. Table 2-1: BICEP array, BICEP3, SPIDER info need to be added (Lorenzo)

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...

Focal plane optical coupling

  1. The use of the oxford comma is inconsistent
  2. capture CLASS technology correctly (waiting for input from Karwan)

Focal plane sensor and readout

  1. 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