Instrument Paper Comment

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Please add comments in appropriate section: You can also send comments to Aritoki Suzuki at

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

  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. 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:

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

  • Readout chapter, Acronym missing definition
  • Receiver optics chapter, Broken citation link

Executive summary

  1. 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 and Conclusion

  1. Please add comment here

Telescope design

  1. 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).
  2. 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)
  3. BICEP-3 section complete?

Receiver optics

  1. 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.
  2. Missing captions for summary table
  3. Some citation are still [?]
  • \cite{Dumitrescu}
  • \cite{Zhang09} (
  • \cite{spider}
  • \cite{Salatino10}
  • \cite{bryan2010a}
  • \cite{Reichborn-Kjennerud10}
  • \cite{zilic_thesis}
  • Citations in HWP rotation mechanism

Focal plane optical coupling

  1. Missing captions for summary table

Focal plane sensor and readout

  1. Missing captions for summary table
  2. Missing acronym definition (Acronym table at end of chapter)
  3. Section 5.4.2 - In the previous section, it was stated that the TDM architecture described is very different from the one used in SCUBA2, BICEP2 and ACT, so this statement ("The TDM architecture described above is now very mature and has extensive field heritage on a variety of CMB instruments including...") is confusing.
  4. Section 5.5.3 - This section is the first section that mentions technology/production status level; other technologies described above did not include a discussion of PS/TSL. Consistency