A “strange” unit radio astronomy2SB mixer in radio astronomy?Why does radio astronomy offer higher...
How do I construct an nxn matrix?
Equivalent to "source" in OpenBSD?
CBP Reminds Travelers to Allow 72 Hours for ESTA. Why?
Called into a meeting and told we are being made redundant (laid off) and "not to share outside". Can I tell my partner?
Which aircraft had such a luxurious-looking navigator's station?
It took me a lot of time to make this, pls like. (YouTube Comments #1)
You'll find me clean when something is full
How can atoms be electrically neutral when there is a difference in the positions of the charges?
How would we write a misogynistic character without offending people?
When was drinking water recognized as crucial in marathon running?
Can you use a beast's innate abilities while polymorphed?
Why is working on the same position for more than 15 years not a red flag?
What are these green text/line displays shown during the livestream of Crew Dragon's approach to dock with the ISS?
When should a commit not be version tagged?
Why does the 31P{1H} NMR spectrum of cis-[Mo(CO)2(dppe)2] show two signals?
Is divide-by-zero a security vulnerability?
Is there any relevance to Thor getting his hair cut other than comedic value?
Understanding Kramnik's play in game 1 of Candidates 2018
Did 5.25" floppies undergo a change in magnetic coating?
What is a term for a function that when called repeatedly, has the same effect as calling once?
Linear regression when Y is bounded and discrete
"Murder!" The knight said
Avoiding unpacking an array when altering its dimension
Skis versus snow shoes - when to choose which for travelling the backcountry?
A “strange” unit radio astronomy
2SB mixer in radio astronomy?Why does radio astronomy offer higher resolution images than optical?Radio Astronomy and ImagingWould Adaptive Optics be Useful in Radio Astronomy?Help with homwork - AstronomyHow big a dish do I need for radio astronomy?Strange behaviour of black holesDifferent radio process band rangesUnits in optical and radio spectral data cubes: Flux vs BrightnessWhy does the author believe that the central mass that gas cloud HCN-0.009-0.044 orbits is smaller than our solar system?
$begingroup$
I'm reading up on radio astronomy, and I came across this paper from 1964. At the bottom of page 193, the author uses a unit that I've not seen before in discussing radio power emission from stars:
Now the outbursts on the Sun give an intensity on Earth of $10^{19}$ to $10^{20}$ $wm^{-2}(c/s)^{-1}$
I'm guessing it's "Watts per square meter per something per second", but I'm not sure what the something is.
A similar unit appears in this paper on the first line on page 364:
The comparison band in the radiometer, being separated approximately 3.25 Mc from the signal band, never encounters the hydrogen range of frequencies.
Again, this looks to me like megasomething. Can anyone shed some light on this?
On page 362 of the second paper, the unit appears as $(Watts/M^2
)/(C/S)$ as a unit of flux. There, the $C$ looks like coulombs, but that makes the $3.25 Mc$ in the second quote seem weird.
radio-astronomy units
asked 7 hours ago
Jim421616Jim421616
579211
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm reading up on radio astronomy, and I came across this paper from 1964. At the bottom of page 193, the author uses a unit that I've not seen before in discussing radio power emission from stars:
Now the outbursts on the Sun give an intensity on Earth of $10^{19}$ to $10^{20}$ $wm^{-2}(c/s)^{-1}$
I'm guessing it's "Watts per square meter per something per second", but I'm not sure what the something is.
A similar unit appears in this paper on the first line on page 364:
The comparison band in the radiometer, being separated approximately 3.25 Mc from the signal band, never encounters the hydrogen range of frequencies.
Again, this looks to me like megasomething. Can anyone shed some light on this?
On page 362 of the second paper, the unit appears as $(Watts/M^2
)/(C/S)$ as a unit of flux. There, the $C$ looks like coulombs, but that makes the $3.25 Mc$ in the second quote seem weird.
radio-astronomy units
asked 7 hours ago
Jim421616Jim421616
579211
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm reading up on radio astronomy, and I came across this paper from 1964. At the bottom of page 193, the author uses a unit that I've not seen before in discussing radio power emission from stars:
Now the outbursts on the Sun give an intensity on Earth of $10^{19}$ to $10^{20}$ $wm^{-2}(c/s)^{-1}$
I'm guessing it's "Watts per square meter per something per second", but I'm not sure what the something is.
A similar unit appears in this paper on the first line on page 364:
The comparison band in the radiometer, being separated approximately 3.25 Mc from the signal band, never encounters the hydrogen range of frequencies.
Again, this looks to me like megasomething. Can anyone shed some light on this?
On page 362 of the second paper, the unit appears as $(Watts/M^2
)/(C/S)$ as a unit of flux. There, the $C$ looks like coulombs, but that makes the $3.25 Mc$ in the second quote seem weird.
radio-astronomy units
asked 7 hours ago
Jim421616Jim421616
579211
$endgroup$
I'm reading up on radio astronomy, and I came across this paper from 1964. At the bottom of page 193, the author uses a unit that I've not seen before in discussing radio power emission from stars:
Now the outbursts on the Sun give an intensity on Earth of $10^{19}$ to $10^{20}$ $wm^{-2}(c/s)^{-1}$
I'm guessing it's "Watts per square meter per something per second", but I'm not sure what the something is.
A similar unit appears in this paper on the first line on page 364:
The comparison band in the radiometer, being separated approximately 3.25 Mc from the signal band, never encounters the hydrogen range of frequencies.
Again, this looks to me like megasomething. Can anyone shed some light on this?
On page 362 of the second paper, the unit appears as $(Watts/M^2
)/(C/S)$ as a unit of flux. There, the $C$ looks like coulombs, but that makes the $3.25 Mc$ in the second quote seem weird.
radio-astronomy units
radio-astronomy units
asked 7 hours ago
Jim421616Jim421616
579211
asked 7 hours ago
Jim421616Jim421616
579211
edited 7 hours ago
Jim421616
asked 7 hours ago
Jim421616Jim421616
579211
asked 7 hours ago
Jim421616Jim421616
579211
asked 7 hours ago
Jim421616Jim421616
579211
579211
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I would expect the authors to be talking about the signal in terms of janskys, the now-commonly-used units of flux density. The typical definition is
$$1text{ Jansky}=10^{-26}text{ Watts meters}^{-2}text{ Hertz}^{-1}$$
One Hertz is one cycle per second, which makes me suspect that the "c" stands for cycle. It might seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but as the papers were published in 1964 and 1955, and the Hertz was only adopted on a large scale in 1964, the older term "cycles per second" is more fitting, given the time period.
answered 7 hours ago
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
20k265125
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The fact that they are from older papers makes me agree with you, that it's an old convention. Jansky is consistent with flux. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Jim421616
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
$endgroup$
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29863%2fa-strange-unit-radio-astronomy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I would expect the authors to be talking about the signal in terms of janskys, the now-commonly-used units of flux density. The typical definition is
$$1text{ Jansky}=10^{-26}text{ Watts meters}^{-2}text{ Hertz}^{-1}$$
One Hertz is one cycle per second, which makes me suspect that the "c" stands for cycle. It might seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but as the papers were published in 1964 and 1955, and the Hertz was only adopted on a large scale in 1964, the older term "cycles per second" is more fitting, given the time period.
answered 7 hours ago
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
20k265125
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The fact that they are from older papers makes me agree with you, that it's an old convention. Jansky is consistent with flux. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Jim421616
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
$endgroup$
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would expect the authors to be talking about the signal in terms of janskys, the now-commonly-used units of flux density. The typical definition is
$$1text{ Jansky}=10^{-26}text{ Watts meters}^{-2}text{ Hertz}^{-1}$$
One Hertz is one cycle per second, which makes me suspect that the "c" stands for cycle. It might seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but as the papers were published in 1964 and 1955, and the Hertz was only adopted on a large scale in 1964, the older term "cycles per second" is more fitting, given the time period.
answered 7 hours ago
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
20k265125
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The fact that they are from older papers makes me agree with you, that it's an old convention. Jansky is consistent with flux. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Jim421616
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
$endgroup$
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would expect the authors to be talking about the signal in terms of janskys, the now-commonly-used units of flux density. The typical definition is
$$1text{ Jansky}=10^{-26}text{ Watts meters}^{-2}text{ Hertz}^{-1}$$
One Hertz is one cycle per second, which makes me suspect that the "c" stands for cycle. It might seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but as the papers were published in 1964 and 1955, and the Hertz was only adopted on a large scale in 1964, the older term "cycles per second" is more fitting, given the time period.
answered 7 hours ago
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
20k265125
$endgroup$
I would expect the authors to be talking about the signal in terms of janskys, the now-commonly-used units of flux density. The typical definition is
$$1text{ Jansky}=10^{-26}text{ Watts meters}^{-2}text{ Hertz}^{-1}$$
One Hertz is one cycle per second, which makes me suspect that the "c" stands for cycle. It might seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but as the papers were published in 1964 and 1955, and the Hertz was only adopted on a large scale in 1964, the older term "cycles per second" is more fitting, given the time period.
answered 7 hours ago
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
20k265125
edited 1 hour ago
answered 7 hours ago
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
20k265125
answered 7 hours ago
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
20k265125
answered 7 hours ago
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
20k265125
20k265125
2
$begingroup$
The fact that they are from older papers makes me agree with you, that it's an old convention. Jansky is consistent with flux. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Jim421616
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
$endgroup$
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
The fact that they are from older papers makes me agree with you, that it's an old convention. Jansky is consistent with flux. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Jim421616
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
$endgroup$
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
2
2
$begingroup$
The fact that they are from older papers makes me agree with you, that it's an old convention. Jansky is consistent with flux. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Jim421616
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The fact that they are from older papers makes me agree with you, that it's an old convention. Jansky is consistent with flux. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Jim421616
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
$endgroup$
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
$endgroup$
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29863%2fa-strange-unit-radio-astronomy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
