|
Google doc : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tnIkhGmBoFEh31udkLDU6WQgOsHq_fA_1QCdcTEKGHY/edit#docs.google.com/document/d/1tnIkhGmBoFEh31udkLDU6WQgOsHq_fA_1QCdcTEKGHY/edit#
Connection: https://zoom.us/j/92223782076?pwd=K3BlMjdwb2l5KzhGcG9WQ00yVTRVQT09 ID de réunion : 922 2378 2076 Code secret : zZZ7f7 Attendees: Not attending: For memory: Minutes from our last telecon Activities of the Core Working Group Members and their main interests Agenda: Debrief on the ALMA-IMF workshop (22 to 26 of March) Xing: G327 overviewResult: 60-70 cores only. Cross-matching of getsf versus Gext2D catalogs (40% mismatch!) Use of MaxLikelihood estimator to check the slope CMF is flat but depends **a lot** on the temperature you take for cores. Warning by Yohan: you should adjust the “matching” tolerance according to the beam size of your image. I recommend taking it between 0.5 and 1 time the beam size. This should increase the matching percentage... Adam: several high-mass core - how are there ~10 cores with ~100 msun? Friedrich: doubts the sub-fragmentation of the hot core. Suggests using lines to estimate temperatures (hot cores have plenty of lines with which to do this) Sasha: A similar analysis and the same plots must be created for the getsf catalogs. This would show uncertainties of the results. Without comparison of the two methods, the results are difficult to believe. Jonathan: When the number of cores is small (<100), uncertainties can be significant and bootstrapping is a good technique to assess them (if not obvious, I can explain). Xing: I will do the same tests with the getsf catalog, thanks for reminding. Thomas? Benjamin?
0 Comments
Connection:
https://zoom.us/j/96841488585?pwd=dURySjB2ZHQ1Z2lnL1FDclJWaTd4QT09 ID de réunion : 968 4148 8585 Code secret : Zw11YV Google doc : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RPZPeDeEo1HrBgN_avnoAnH4OOLOHJ0RZfH2BBPuqrs/edit Attendees: Sasha, fab,Yohan, Fabrice, Nathalie, Sylvain, Nicolás, Maxime, Thomas, Allison Not attending: Adam (at CMZOOM), Gemma, Fred For memory: Minutes from our last telecon Activities of the Core Working Group Members and their main interests Agenda: Debrief on the ALMA-IMF workshop (22 to 26 of March) Mélanie: G012 overviewResult: Gext2D gives higher fluxes than the getsf catalog. Gext2D gives a flatter CMF. But: Free-free sources were not excluded(?) Sylvain: A priori they (free-free sources) are removed in the GExt2D source list I sent to you. I remove all sources with Fl_1mm/Fl_3mm < 3.5. This is why sources on the filament seem undetected by GExt2D. Here is the Fl_1mm vs Fl_3mm for GExt2D all sources for G012.80: Future goal: look for outflows, especially in the HII region Friedrich question: Why not using cm maps? Glostar has a too coarse angular resolution. Recombination line are indeed less sensitive. (Adam’s note: VLA followup data with appropriate resolution, UV coverage are being reduced by UF undergraduate students now) Pierre D : the difference of the CMF slope between the two extraction is not so important? Sasha: The differences in CMF slopes (if significant) between the tools are very important for ALMA-IMF and the reasons must be clearly understood. Clearly, some properties of the codes are different. Yohan has the benchmark results for simalma50 and simalma240 for both codes and they must be analyzed in terms of the ratios A/A_true, I/I_true, F/F_true as a function of the S/N ratio I/sigma, as well as a function of the true source size A_true. Such scatter plots are very instructive and I use them a lot in my benchmarking paper. They will help us understand the reasons for the differences in the fluxes and in CMFs. Without such plots and analysis, the reasons cannot be established and this would be very bad, because no clear conclusion would be possible from the CMF work. Bump in the CMF: denoising might help here, as it permits to extract cores deeper. Sasha: the difference between the fits of getsf and getext2d are small (1.06 versus 1.17)? Did you try to keep only the common sources? And for GExt2D, try to include sources even with bad flx_qu because they are detected. Yohan: concerning the ratio 1/3mm, I recently updated the code to plot ratio as function of S/N to define the most reliable sources to remove. I can re-run G012 to produce this figure or send you the piece of code to do it yourself. 1mm/3mm: permits to separate the free-free contaminated and thermal sources quite efficiently ; perhaps not so efficient when 3mm is hardly detected. Sylvain made tests measuring 3mm fluxes down to 2\sigma -> this is a correct approach if there is a strong 1mm detection at this exact spot (Karl) Open questions
Fab: none as PI but I was involved in a couple of proposals toward outflows of Class II protostars (trying to know if MHD disk winds are a generic/universal process). One additional proposal toward a massive clump forming at the junction of two large finalements (testing conveyor belt scenario).
Adam: New maps are not expected to change any features of the continuum data. I recommend sticking with the current release.
Connection: https://zoom.us/j/99613070931?pwd=U09CY2p3TUVJYnY4UnRoWXU4RHVzdz09 https://zoom.us/j/92684602720?pwd=SXI4UTQ1OTFOSEViYWdRMWxWcmVxUT09 ID de réunion : 926 8460 2720 Code secret : 5y9dHh Attendees: Fab, Adam, Gemma, Yohan, Nichol, Patricio, Sylvain, Timéa, Maxime, Mélanie, Mélisse, Thomas, Allison, Manuel Not attending: Fred For memory: Minutes from our last telecon Activities of the Core Working Group Members and their main interests Agenda:
Draft schedule 2:00 - 2:10: Fabien (global CMF) 2:10 - 2:20: Mélanie (G012) 2:20 - 2:30: Xing (G327) 2:30 - 2:40: Hideaki (G338) 2:40 - 2:50: Yohan (W43-MM2&3) 2:50 - 3:00: Nichol (MnGseg catalogs) 3:00 - 3:10: Theo (protostellar + core models) 3:10 - 3:20: Pierre (PPMAP and Herbie) 3:20 - 3:30: Synthesis: Identifying common tools and objectives -> coming back on the CMFs in W43-MM2&3 (Yohan) Questions:
-> Try and build global pre/proto-stellar CMFs? Search if SiO outflow is an effect of core-mass or of environmental density Connection:
https://univ-grenoble-alpes-fr.zoom.us/j/98634272360?pwd=YkQ1ZVM5K2l4UUFPTkViYVNZRDFXZz09 Attendees: Fred, Sasha, Nathalie, Mélisse, Adam, Sylvain, Allison, Leo, Fabien, Maxime, Mélanie, Nicolas, Fabrice, Nichol, Thomas, Yohan, Karl Not attending: For memory: Minutes from our last telecon Activities of the Core Working Group Members and their main interests Agenda:
8 talks of 7min (presentation) + 3min (discussion) Draft schedule 2:00 - 2:10: Fabien (global CMF) 2:10 - 2:20: Mélanie (G012) 2:20 - 2:30: Xing (G327) 2:30 - 2:40: Hideaki (G338) 2:40 - 2:50: Yohan (W43-MM2&3) 2:50 - 3:00: Nichol (MnGseg catalogs) 3:00 - 3:10: Theo (protostellar + core models) 3:10 - 3:20: Pierre (PPMAP and Herbie) 3:20 - 3:30: Synthesis: Identifying common tools and objectives
The Overview paper shows that the statistics in terms of core content is good-enough to compare massive protoclusters at different evolutionary stages and that there is no observational bias with the total cloud mass or cloud evolutionary stage. Connection: https://univ-grenoble-alpes-fr.zoom.us/j/98634272360?pwd=YkQ1ZVM5K2l4UUFPTkViYVNZRDFXZz09 Attendees: Fred, Timea, Yohan, Sasha, Nathalie, Fabrice, Adam, Ant, Mélisse, Nichol, Thomas, Allison, Sylvain, Gemma, Tapas, Quang Not attending: For memory: Minutes from our last telecon Activities of the Core Working Group Members and their main interests Agenda:
Adam’s suggestion: ALMAIMF_G333.33333+00.3333 (In Galactic coordinates) Yohan’s suggestion: ALMAIMF_281.86-02.66 (In degrees) 
Connection:
https://univ-grenoble-alpes-fr.zoom.us/j/98634272360?pwd=YkQ1ZVM5K2l4UUFPTkViYVNZRDFXZz09 Attendees: Fred, Sasha, Adam, Timea, HongLi, Mélanie, Fabrice, Nichol, Josh, Fabien, Nathalie, Leo, Yohan, Allison, Sylvain, Amy, Cara, Tapas, Mélisse Not attending: For memory: Minutes from our last telecon Activities of the Core Working Group Members and their main interests Agenda:
NH3, 3’’ → T(NH3) of the cores surrounding (+ ALMA 0.2’’ @ 1mm) Mean temperatures: 20K (SE or W51-E) 60K (W51-E) up to 120K (W51-IRS2) Effect of the dynamic assumptions for temperature on the CMF: slightly steeper Cores located on the extended free-free emission could correspond to chance alignment (no T measurements) or free-free peaks. To remember: apply for more NH3 measurements at the VLA deadline for C configuration (later than August).
getsf seems to provide better flux estimates for the weakest sources. → better for mass studies
Gemma: W51-E (more sensitive and larger area than the paper to be submitted by Josh+) Hongli G353.41 (CMF, fragmentation) Xing G327 Nichol+Jeff?: on the denoised images by MnGSeg Connection:
https://univ-grenoble-alpes-fr.zoom.us/j/98634272360?pwd=YkQ1ZVM5K2l4UUFPTkViYVNZRDFXZz09 Attendees: Fred, Fabien, Yohan, Sasha, Nathalie, Mélanie, Fabrice, Gemma, Adam, Leo, Sylvain, Amy, Allison, Patricio, Nichol, Timea Not attending: For memory: Minutes from our last telecon Activities of the Core Working Group Members and their main interests Agenda:
Automatic removal of (0% in young, 10% in intermediate, ¼ in evolved regions) cores potentially contaminated by free-free emission using 3mm/1mm ratio maps and the recombination line images of Roberto ⇒ Evolutionary stage of regions to be refined (see Fig. 20 of Adam’s paper): G353 and G08 → Intermediate, G12 → Evolved, G337 → Young ⇒ The CMF becomes slightly steeper for evolved regions when removing cores lying in the free-free (H41alpha footprint for now) areas. Young: G327, G328, G337, G338, W43-MM1, W43-MM2 (no Halpha) Intermediate: W43-MM3, G351, G353, G008, W51-E (most cores on thermal dust emission) Evolved: W51-IRS2, G010, G012, G333 The major uncertainty is now coming from the dust temperature, here assumed to be constant over the whole core sample. → Test to be done on W51 using NH3 temperature (Adam + Fabien) Optical thickness to be investigated, using e.g. the approximated formula of our Nature Astronomy paper.
weak 3mm sources (TBD by Fabien) Few sources (2-3) could be free-free in MM3
Gemma: W51-E Hongli G353.41 (CMF, fragmentation) Xing G327 Nichol+Jeff?: on the denoised images by MnGSeg
To be discussed in 2 weeks.
Connection:
https://univ-grenoble-alpes-fr.zoom.us/j/98634272360?pwd=YkQ1ZVM5K2l4UUFPTkViYVNZRDFXZz09 Attendees: Fred, Fabien, Antoine, Sasha, Adam, Nathalie, Amy, Tapas, Sylvain, Leo, Yohan, Thomas, Jeff, Pierre, Mélisse, Mélanie, Allison, HongLi, Fabrice Not attending: For memory: Minutes from our last telecon Activities of the Core Working Group Members and their main interests Agenda:
Noise: white noise before simobserve + weather noise in simobserve Integration time, distance, configuration were supposed to be representing ALMA-IMF images. → Dendrogram tests must still be correctly done → Comparison of getsf versus Gext2D: good correspondence except for lower-intensity sources
There is no more evolution of the CMF slope → index = 0.73-0.77 whatever the evolutionary stage of the region, flatter than the slope measure on the IRDC CMF by Patricio. We now need to take into account free-free sources → removing cores using potential free-free emission (To Be improved), the index all regions gets steeper, and the evolved region close to = 1.4, the Salpeter index.
Inputs: Data and beam fits for each wavelength + beta and Tdust grids + color correction + “a priori dilution” (1 to 10, effect on Tmap) Adding 70 micron and even worse 24 micron does not help modelize the SED of the big-grain submm component. Opacity at 70 micron was taken into account (empirical correction) by Ken for the Tdust image of W43-MM1.
None of these models include free-free emission... Connection:
https://univ-grenoble-alpes-fr.zoom.us/j/98634272360?pwd=YkQ1ZVM5K2l4UUFPTkViYVNZRDFXZz09 Attendees: Fred, Sasha, Nathalie, Yohan, Hongli, Mélanie, Ant, Fabien, Fabrice, Adam, Alex, Alison, Antoine, Jeff, Thomas, Patricio, Tapas, Timea Not attending: Gemma For memory: Minutes from our last telecon Activities of the Core Working Group Members and their main interests Agenda:
Preliminary CMF: powerlaw fit? with -1 instead of 1.35 (Salpeter) Tdust images: PPMAP with validation by modelling of a few sources with Hyperion → Hyperion code could be used for the SED fit of 1/ the whole ALMA-IMF fields, when no published luminosity exists (done for W43-MM2) and 2/ some specific cores in our ALMA-IMF fields Other people interested to make similar work: - Fabrice - Theo Richardson’s project (PhD with Adam): expanding Robitaille 2017 grid, connecting it with protostellar evolution models
With Getx2D, significance still need to be investigated before catalogs are made Nothing done for Dendrogram yet → Benchmark images to be used → Need to contact Erik for Dendrograms
Questions
PPMAP experts: → Ken Marsh (IPAC) and Alex Howard (in a company from Monday on) → Matt Smith from Cardiff (extragalactic focus) → Ana XX (SNR astronomer) → Hands-on? Interested people: From France: Fabrice Herpin, Fred, Yohan, Antoine, Mélanie?, From US: Allison Towner, Adam From Mexico: Thomas?
Not discussed today...
Connection:
https://ufl.zoom.us/j/96368629056?pwd=c1JmbWN6Rll0ZkNjYzJZamtXZFdmUT09 Attendees: Fred, Yohan, Adam, Timea, Sasha, Gemma, Allison, Hongli, Roberto, Alex, Ant, Nathalie, Amy, Fabien, Tapas Not attending: Manuel For memory: Minutes from our last telecon Members and their main interests Agenda:
→ to be used as a model toward which the high-resolution Tdust images should converge
Tight noise: sigma/2 for LABOCA (870) and ALMA B3 (3000); sigma/4 for ALMA B6 (1300). Gaussian noise is assumed and levels are calculated for each map as a first step of PPMAP. These noise levels are used in the SED fit. The effect of a non-Gaussian noise on the PPMAP results should be checked… If we were to impose some weights for the different wavelengths, PPMAP would need to be modified. → not for now! Temperature increases from the ‘normal noise’ to ‘half noise’ and the ‘tight noise’ runs. Be careful! The “tight noise” run gives temperatures closer to that of the Herschel run.
The SED fit gets worse to the 70 micron point and a s a consequence the small heating toward MM2 is lost → the 60’’-filtering run seems more reasonable
Preliminary conclusions: → The 60’’-filtering run seems better than the 30’’-filtering run → The ‘tight noise’ run gives temperature in the background that better corresponds to that of the Herschel run. → The run without B3 gives better Tdust values close to/but off the HII region. → Could we combine the Herschel-only map and 60’’-filtering ‘tight-noise’ map to have a continuous Tdust image? Could we fit SEDs on each pixel just dropping the negative flux?
Not discussed today
|
RSS Feed