On 22/07/2023 22:35, Anthony wrote:
Hey Marcus,
Finally woke up and saw your email, thank you so much!!
Wow, a mild drink and a good long nap, gives you a better
perspective! Ok, took a look at the dishes, took a really
good look and they are not oriented correctly to each other
and location for drift scanning, obviously! 🙂
One dish's (Western) landing pad is not aligned properly
(didn't measure) to the Eastern dish, which by the way looks
pretty good, probably why the SNR has a better performance
than the Western dish; in addition the LNA was replaced and
it's not so close to the Western dish side of the RFI. The
feed horns aren't the best. In other words, I need to go
back to the basics:
- Understanding Baseline - in terms of
resolution, longer baselines provide better resolution
- Determine the optimal Baseline - which will
depend on the radio sources I wish to observe and taking
into consideration proper dish aligned and phased
You aren't going to come even *close* to "resolving" any discrete
sources, except for the Sun and Moon, and even those,
at 21cm, would require (rough guess) about a 30m baseline. So
the "optimal baseline" is the one you can fit along
a good east-west line in the space you have available to you.
- Orientation - East-West or North-South and
since both dishes use actuators and not an EL/Azimuth
drive, drift scans are probably what I'm left to do,
which means an orientation of East-West, am I correct in
this thinking?
For a simple two-element interferometer, east west is the best
orientation. It will give you the nicest-looking fringes. With
only
two dishes, doing actual synthesis imaging would be a significant
challenge, so I wouldn't worry about any N-S orientation.
The main advantage to an interferometer in an amateur setting is
that it allows you to detect discrete sources that would
otherwise be buried in the background for a small single-dish
instrument. Even with a 3m dish, being able to definitively say
"hey, look, I captured Cygnus A" is next to impossible because you
are mostly seeing the combined emission of Cygnus A
and the the galactic background. With an interferometer, larger
structures are mostly suppressed.
- Location - RFI, not much I can do about that,
no place to move the dishes, but the upper part of the
backyard. My better half (wife) has enforced no
satellite dishes in the lower part of the backyard or
hunting for aliens.. Joking 😊 But she's serious!
- Calibration and testing - something a lot of
the SARA members do, calibration, testing and
calibration, testing...
For starters, I'm no longer going to grab my pickaxe,
shovel, carry multiple (28, 50lb bags) cement bags up a
hill to do the work myself. I'll contact a professional
cement service and have them lay down the cement pads for
both dishes, but making sure to determine the optimal
baseline and orientation.
When I poured the base for my first 3.7m dish all those years ago, I
started out with bags of concrete and naive
enthusiasm. My "better(???) half" wouldn't let me spend money out
of household funds on this, so I had to
sell one of my Yaesu radios to pay for a commercial concrete
delivery. Even back then (2001 or so?), 9 tonnes of
high-strength concrete was about $600.00. The forms (and
resultant block) were much larger than needed for
a 3.7m dish, but I was looking ahead to a future that never really
happened where I might get my hands on a bigger
dish. So the entire structure was wildly over-built.
Again, if you can manage a strictly east-west baseline, where the
dishes will have an unobstructed view to the south, and
to perhaps 15 degrees to the North (total of 105 degrees from the
southern horizon), you'll be well set. Having a skew
in the baseline away from East-West will tend to produce an
asymmetry in the fringes--which is one of the ways you can
tell that your baseline is skewed. For amateur work, "mostly
east-west" fulfills the gross requirement of producing
acceptable fringes that allow you to confirm detection.
I'll add in the new LNAs & BPF, after rebuilding
the feedhorns and using a VNA to determine the
best/optimal VSWR and so forth..... All of this should
have been done in the first place, sigh! Radio Astronomy
is unforgiving for the newbie!
Thanks everyone for the help and especially Marcus, and
Dr. Wolfgang, for your support!!
I think your HVAC-based feed-horns are probably adequate -- not
perhaps "spectacular" but adequate. Really, once
you have a working interferometer, it will just "want" to work.
You'll quickly be able to detect most of the
"usual suspects" of brighter discrete sources out there. They
really do just "want to work" once they're
set-up correctly. A feed-horn that isn't quite optimal will NOT
be the determining factor. Our 611MHz interferometer
at our previous observatory site was made, to a first
approximation, with "baling wire and chewing gum". It worked
"out of the gate".