Talk:Cavendish Astrophysics Group

Astronomy Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Cambridge

This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge

Untitled

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

are you going to include the (in)famous 2C survey (which also includes a reference out to Source counts). Might also be nice to link into John E. Baldwin's entry.Linuxlad 08:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

2C

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Don't know much about the ghost sources in the 2C survey. Write something if you like.

Rnt20 10:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

There's already stuff in the two links I've given which is more or less as much as I know. Basically 'confusion'is the blending of weak sources below the flux limit in the sidelobes of the interferometer -it produces responses which look like a real source above the flux limit of the survey. (It's just a non-thermal noise background, I guess...) If you've ever seen raw interferometer output you'll soon see the problem. Perhaps I'll look for a more definitive statement. Linuxlad aka Bob

Add topic