<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Anya,<br>
<br>
Regarding Fig. 2 - How much data is removed is also evident from
the top panels. So I don't think that is a particular strong
reason for having the dynamic spectra there.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Patrick<br>
<br>
<br>
On 23/08/19 16:20, Anna Bilous wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKGVWF+6zC33T32BmPLL4xQcn2r4pSJg8+hcchyKVfeHDd5EtQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Patrick,</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="gmail-m_7417464245289932063moz-cite-prefix"><br>
<br>
Figure 2: I don't think having the dynamic spectra adds
a lot, so I would remove them. In addition I had a
question about the cleaned freq vs phase plots: why are
there white rows which do not appear in the uncleaned
version? Rows with empty samples appear as orange for
other rows.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I'm not sure for now about removing dynamic spectra, I
think they make a good illustration of how much band was
deleted. I'll take a look at the color issue.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="gmail-m_7417464245289932063moz-cite-prefix">
Figure 3: I don't really see the point in showing for
each pulsar & beam what fraction of the data was
deleted. I think that if this information should be
available to the reader, then it should be in a table in
the appendix. At the moment the figures in the paper
itself (excluding the appendix) is dominated by plots
which show that the data is non-ideal (two large figures
about dropped packets & RFI, two small figures about
interesting stuff related to the sample). If you want to
show something related to the zapped fraction, I would
make a histogram of the fraction of useful data, which
is much smaller. I also don't think there is a reason to
keep the inset. As you already do, you can simply state
in the text that there is no correlation with date.
Making the plot was a useful diagnostic for us, but the
information in the inset will not be particularly useful
for the reader.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree with that, that plot remained from the days when
we were trying to assess the amount of damage. I'll move the
information to the summary table in Appendix and add a short
description to the text.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Anya</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="gmail-m_7417464245289932063moz-cite-prefix">
Section 4: I think this is part of "Observations and
data reduction", so I would make it a subsection of
section 3.<br>
<br>
It would be great to have this published!<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Patrick<br>
<br>
<br>
Abstract - remove "Despite some telescope malfunction".
I think it only puts off readers from reading the paper,
and it is not particularly useful for the reader to read
at this point.<br>
<br>
Section 2: 2nd paragraph - Add a sentence at the end
like "The consequence is that only 88 out of the 194
pulsars which are in the HBA census were observed and
discussed here." At the moment the text doesn't quite
explicitly states if only HBA pulsars were observed, or
all pulsars HBA pointings are available for (without the
pulsar necessarily being detected).<br>
<br>
3rd paragraph: <br>
<br>
with AN incoherent dedispersion scheme.<br>
<br>
only compensated FOR between channels<br>
<br>
The proposed source sample therefore ONLY? included
pulsars with sufficiently (if only is not missing from
the sentence, then I don't get the point of the
paragraph)<br>
<br>
without ephemerides updateS.<br>
<br>
hoping to DETECT strong single pulses.<br>
<br>
Last paragraph of section 2: At the moment it just says
"here is a plot" without a conclusion attached to it. I
think it is there to back up the last statement from the
previous paragraph. So I would delete the last paragraph
and simply write: "with some preference for
closer/brighter sources (SEE FIG. 1)."<br>
<br>
Caption Fig. 1: I would remove "(see text for more
information)", since the text kind of says this is done
in an, at least for the reader, undefined way. Also,
"THE scattering time was estimated with THE Galactic"<br>
<br>
Footnote 2: Either in THE original ATNF (and end the
sentence with a .)<br>
<br>
Section 3:<br>
<br>
"(beam 0 on the NOMINAL POSITION OF THE TARGET"<br>
<br>
"private sources" - clarify these is Lovell and GBT
positions.<br>
<br>
<br>
observations at the Jodrell, Lovell -> observations
with the Lovell telescope at Jodrell Bank<br>
<br>
in many cases the initial DM -> in many cases the DM
as derived from higher-frequency observations<br>
<br>
“old” -> these incorrect<br>
<br>
<br>
of THE relative signal strength difference<br>
<br>
"for each time/frequency data cell in phase-integrated
dynamic spectrum" - I'm not 100% sure what this means,
so please clarify. Phase-integrated means integrated
over pulse longitude? So that means you get 300 (nr freq
channels) numbers per 5 second subint?<br>
<br>
Caption Fig. 2: An example of diagnostic plots without
(left) and with (right) dropped packed cleaning APPLIED
for one observation of THE bright pulsar B0809+74. The
upper row of plots shows the statistic of THE two
polarizations, the lower PLOTS SHOW THE dynamic and
folded spectra, waterfall diagram, and the average
profile.<br>
<br>
Figure 2: The plots should have tick marks. The
horizontal labelling of the top plots is confusing.
There are four pannels. The upper three have (I assume)
a horizontal axis corresponding to frequency (as shown
at the top). Only the lower panel has dP as the
horizontal axis. However, for the middle two plots this
is not clear from the figure. Having tickmarks in all
panels would help. Possibly reducing the gap to zero for
the first 3 panels would also clarify they share the
same horizontal axis, but the lower panel not. <br>
<br>
<br>
For a few pulsars (namely,<br>
B0105+68, B0643+80, B0656+14), the data was contaminated<br>
to the point where no cleaning (manual or automatic)
could help.<br>
Thus, we exclude these pulsars from our sample.<br>
-><br>
For only 3 pulsars (namely, B0105+68, B0643+80,
B0656+14), the RFI prevented useful analysis, hence they
were exclude from our sample.<br>
<br>
<br>
"Overall, the fraction of band that has been deleted due
to dropped packages or RFIs is quite substantial" - I
fully agree with Joeri's suggestion related to this
paragraph.<br>
<br>
Section 3.1<br>
<br>
We adjusted pulsar period P and DM with the PSRCHIVE
pro-<br>
gram pdmp, maximizing integrated S/N of the frequency-
and<br>
time-averaged profile over the set of trial values of P
and DM.<br>
-><br>
We adjusted THE FOLD PERIOD AND THE INTRA-CHANNEL
DISPERSION DELAY (i.e. adjusting the pulse period would
involve sending a missile to the pulsar!) with the
PSRCHIVE program pdmp, maximizing (remove integrated)
THE S/N of the frequency and time-averaged profile.
REMOVE REST OF SENTENCE<br>
<br>
initial number of PHASE bins<br>
<br>
Caption figure 3: <br>
Pulsars are ordered by the maximum deleted fraction.<br>
-><br>
Pulsars are ordered by the highest deleted fraction of
the beams.<br>
<br>
Same caption: Delete "Pulsars B0656+14, B0105+68, and
B0643+80,<br>
were excluded from the analysis due to unmanagable RFI
contamina-<br>
tion." -> Already said in text, so no need to repeat
this, especially given the text is quite negative.<br>
<br>
Back to section 3.1:<br>
<br>
thus for brighter pulsars THE DM may have A BIAS
depending on the assumed profile evolution.<br>
<br>
About the same sentence: you quote the pdmp DM's right?
In that case the "assumed profile evolution" is that
there is no profile evolution. It would be good to
clarify this.<br>
<br>
Fig. 4 shows THE CORRELATION BETWEEN DM and the
estimated scattering time over period for the detected
and non-detected pulsars.<br>
<br>
Section 3.2 - I agree with Joeri this should not be part
of "Observations and data reduction"<br>
<br>
Section 4: <br>
<br>
Folded data files were calibrated<br>
-><br>
The folded data were calibrated<br>
<br>
A coherence factor of 0.85 was used: is there a ref for
the 0.85?<br>
<br>
The off-pulse windows<br>
-><br>
The on and off-pulse windows (surely you need the
on-pulse window as well as the off pulse window).<br>
<br>
Judging from the relatively well-measured spectra (e.g.<br>
PSRs B0809+74, B1133+16, B1508+55, and others), the LBA<br>
measurements stay within the spread of literature
points, which<br>
is by a factor of few.<br>
-><br>
For those pulsars for which multiple spectra have been
published (e.g.<br>
PSRs B0809+74, B1133+16, B1508+55, and others), the LBA
measurements are consistent with the reported fluxes,
which vary by a factor of a few.<br>
<br>
adopting adopted -> adopting<br>
<br>
THE total flux density error<br>
<br>
Interestingly, 19 out of 44 detected pulsars WERE
DETECTED WITH THE HIGHEST S/N IN A side beam<br>
<br>
TEC (like DM) should not be in italics in equation 1 and
the text.<br>
<br>
5.1<br>
<br>
combined with the literature measurements<br>
-><br>
combined with published measurements (i.e. not a measure
of literature, which might be so many kg of A&A
papers per year).<br>
<br>
PL is undefined<br>
<br>
5.2 - It would be great if the suggestions of Michael
and Joeri could be used to beef up this a bit, which
would also help the conclusion section and the abstract.<br>
<br>
That's it! Great work!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 16/08/19 07:53, Anna Bilous wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Dear all,
please find attached the draft of LBA census. Please let us (myself,
Louis, JM & Vlad) know if you have any comments on it. We would like
to submit it on Aug 30 due to Louis'es graduation constraints. Sorry
for the quite short notice, but the paper is short and very simple, so
it should not take long to read it.
Cheers,
Anya
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset
class="gmail-m_7417464245289932063mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
lofarpwg mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_7417464245289932063moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lofarpwg@astron.nl" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">lofarpwg@astron.nl</a>
<a class="gmail-m_7417464245289932063moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.astron.nl/listinfo/lofarpwg" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://mailman.astron.nl/listinfo/lofarpwg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="gmail-m_7417464245289932063moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr. Patrick Weltevrede, senior lecturer in pulsar astrophysics
Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics,
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester
Office 3.210 Alan Turing Building
Tel: +44 (0) 16127 54162
Website: <a class="gmail-m_7417464245289932063moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/</a></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr. Patrick Weltevrede, senior lecturer in pulsar astrophysics
Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics,
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester
Office 3.210 Alan Turing Building
Tel: +44 (0) 16127 54162
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/">http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/</a></pre>
</body>
</html>