|
|
| (65 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | Please add comments in appropriate section: | | Please add comments in appropriate section: |
| | You can also send comments to Aritoki Suzuki at asuzuki@berkeley.edu | | You can also send comments to Aritoki Suzuki at asuzuki@berkeley.edu |
| − |
| |
| − | When editing, please follow style suggested by Maria
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * '''Style consistency (suggested by Maria)'''
| |
| − | ** in the text use words for indicate numbers for example: from "1 or 2 bands" to "one or two bands". Another example: "three-axis mount" instead of "3-axis mount". But for expressions as 1000 TESes, use numbers not words.
| |
| − | ** Preferring CMB-S4 instead of S4 (few times in the next S4 was used).
| |
| − | ** Stage-II instead of Stage-2 or stage-2.
| |
| − | ** Numbered items listed in the text: (i), (ii).
| |
| − | ** ~ for space doesn't work. Use instead \, .
| |
| − | ** Medium size space between number and unit of measurement: 15\,GHz instead of 15 GHz or 15GHz.
| |
| − | ** Ranges of numbers, for example: (120--280)\,GHz instead of 120-280 GHz (since GHz refers to the entire range).
| |
| − | ** Lowercase for indicating the name of materials: alumina instead of Alumina.
| |
| − | ** Caption of figures/tables:\emph{ (Top) bla bla bla bla. (Left) bla bla bla}.
| |
| | | | |
| | === LATEX style === | | === LATEX style === |
| Line 19: |
Line 6: |
| | | | |
| | === General comment === | | === General comment === |
| − | # I was actually a bit surprised by the existence of both a Conclusion and a Summary for each chapter -- my first thought was "What's the difference?". You may want to make these Summaries sub-sections of each Conclusion (maybe...) and/or call them Status Summaries (to make it obvious that this is not just repeating the Conclusions). But in any event I would motivate the Summaries a bit more in the final paragraph of chapter 1. That is, I would expand what you have now: | + | # comments |
| − | | |
| − | We have developed two readiness figures of merit. The Technology Status Level (TSL) and Production Status Level (PSL) give a means to compare technologies directly. The definitions of the TSL and PSL are given the in Table1-1. To allow direct comparison of the TSL and PSL will be given for each technology in this technology book.
| |
| − | | |
| − | to something like
| |
| − | | |
| − | At the end of each chapter [...or, at the end of each chapter's conclusion...] the reader will find a Status Summary in which we tabulate the maturity of the technologies discussed in the chapter. We have developed two readiness figures of merit -- the Technology Status Level (TSL) and the Production Status Level (PSL). These are intended to give the reader a means to compare different technologies directly. Their definitions are given the in Table1-1.
| |
| − | | |
| − | and you may want to make sure the figure captions of each of the tables in each of the Summaries makes reference to Table 1-1.
| |
| | | | |
| | === Acronym Table: Bibliography === | | === Acronym Table: Bibliography === |
| − | * ADM: Artificial dielectric material
| + | # comments |
| − | * CTE: Coefficient of thermal expansion
| |
| − | * BOPP Biaxially Oriented Polyproylene
| |
| − | * HEM: Heat exchanger method
| |
| − | * LAIS: Laser Ablated Infrared Shaders
| |
| − | * TMM: this is NOT an acronym. This is product name
| |
| − | * FNL: Fermi National Laboratory
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Executive summary ===
| |
| − | # In the Executive Summary, I liked the Receiver Optics and Focal Plane Optical Coupling parts. They get the basics across "smoothly". | |
| − | | |
| − | The Telescope Design and Focal Plane Sensors and Readout sections were a bit choppier -- with different levels of paragraphs and subsections. For example, the paragraph about computer simulations for FSLs might be too detailed for the Executive Summary.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the receiver optics part of the Executive Summary, the first paragraph implies that larger sizes would be nice, but then each bullet point afterwards says that larger sizes are *needed*. It seems sort of contradictory.
| |
| | | | |
| − | === Introduction === | + | === Introduction and Conclusion === |
| − | # Please add comment here | + | # comments |
| | | | |
| | === Telescope design === | | === Telescope design === |
| − | # Each of chapters 3, 4 and 5 start immediately with an Introduction, and finish with a Conclusion and then a Summary. Chapter 1 is obviously different from the other chapters, but chapter 2 should probably be edited to follow this pattern as well (move the initial material at the beginning of the chapter to the Introduction and create the Summary for chapter 2). | + | # Table 2-1: BICEP array, BICEP3, SPIDER info need to be added (Lorenzo: by 6/1/2017 morning) |
| − | # Will be exceedingly cross if the word "eyepiece" EVER appears in a description of the BICEP/Keck telescope descriptions. At some point it appeared in Keck documents and papers and I have not been able to kill it. Currently exists in the draft in 2.2.1, 2nd para. Should read: "Each is a simple two-lens objective/field lens design with a stop." (also changed grammar a bit)
| |
| − | # BICEP-3 section complete?
| |
| | | | |
| | === Receiver optics === | | === Receiver optics === |
| − | # It would be better to have some of the definitions in the beginning of chapter 3 rather than in between. For example, loss tangent is used everywhere, however it is defined wonderfully in 3.7.3 Another example is with the VPM. | + | # Improved Sections 3.5 and 3.7 intro? (Jeff) |
| | | | |
| | === Focal plane optical coupling === | | === Focal plane optical coupling === |
| − | # Need to define ARC | + | # capture CLASS technology (waiting for input from Karwan: by 6/1/2017 noon) |
| | | | |
| | === Focal plane sensor and readout === | | === Focal plane sensor and readout === |
| − | # Please add comment here | + | # comment |
