Mc Kenna Williamson Kate Gaziano Mikala Roach Elisabeth

Mc. Kenna Williamson Kate Gaziano Mikala Roach Elisabeth Kee Trey Mc. Neely Mentored by: Kris Sarver

Pulsars Plot Results 8, 2% 104, 20% Noise RFI Known Pulsars 413, 79%

This is noise:

Why that was noise: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The error bars were enormous. The Sub-integration plot has wide, poorly defined waves in it, not a sharp line. Reduced χ2 is extremely small. The P(noise) is 1. The Sub-band plot is fuzzy.

This is RFI:

Why that was RFI: There are clear points in the subintegration plot, but they appear at random phases. There also bands with no visible emission whatsoever. The signal was so strong that the “glare” blocks the background noise. 2. Reduced χ2 is ridiculously high, so it can’t be noise. 3. There are dark horizontal bands in the sub -band plot. 4. Most importantly, proving RFI, it comes from a DM of 0. 1.

This is a pulsar:

Why this is a pulsar: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. It has two distinct pulses. The error bar is miniscule. The sub-integrated and the sub-band plots have two clearly defined lines even though it fades out toward the end. Reduced χ2 is 7. 706, which is extremely good. The DM plot peaks sharply on a single DM.

This is another pulsar:

Why that was a pulsar: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The pulses are distinct and many times the height of the noise bar. There was a clear vertical line visible in the Sub-integration plot before the pulsar drifted out of the telescope’s line of sight. Another clear, vertical line runs through the sub-band plot. The DM plot has a relatively narrow, defined peak. Reduced χ2 is at 6. 665, a high number.

Same pulsar, different plot:

How that one showed the pulsar: There was a line of pulses along a DM line just below 40. 2. There was an extremely narrow peak at a matching DM on the Number-of-Pulses plot. 3. There was also a peak on the Signal-to. Noise plot at the same DM. 1.

This is, once more, a pulsar:

Why that was a pulsar: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Two clearly defined peaks on the Integrated pulse profile. Clear lines at the beginning of the subintegration plot, before it drifted and faded. Clear lines through the sub-band plot. A defined peak on the DM plot. Reduced χ2 is 4. 494.

Single pulse plot of the same pulsar:

How that shows the pulsar: There is a clear line of pulses at a single DM. 2. The Number-of-Pulses plot peaks extremely sharply at one DM. 3. The Signal-to-Noise peaks at the same DM. 4. The pulses also stopped appearing near 50 seconds, the same time the signal faded on the sub-integration plot. 1.

DM’s and Distances � 2221 -0131: DM = 3. 190, Distance = 0. 3 kpc � 1312 -1241: DM = 36. 089, Distance = 25. 9 kpc � 1744 -1347: DM = 115. 963, Distance = 50. 0 kpc � All of these distances are reasonable when viewed in relation to the galaxy.

Interesting structure of plots: � All three sub-integration plots have a signal that fades over time. This is unrelated to the pulsar itself, but to the nature of the drift scan instead. � In the sub-band plot of J 2221 -01, there are two dark points at a single frequency. These first indicated RFI. However, there is a distinct line, albeit fainter, extending above and below the points.

Interesting observations, Cont: � The pulsar seen in the plot at RA 17: 44 Dec 14: 32 was catalogued at RA 17: 43 Dec -13: 51. Remember what Joe and Sarah said about how wide the beam is at 350 m. Hz

This is a Follow-up Observation:

This is our analysis: � We got blasted with RFI.

Finding the age of J 2221 -01 � The period was 32. 8 ms. � The P-dot was 7. 9 x 10 -13 s/s. � (. 03280606016 sec)/(2(7. 9386 x 10 -13 s/s)) � Age at time of initial observation: 20, 662, 371, 000 seconds OR 344, 372, 800 minutes OR 5, 739, 547 hours OR 239, 147. 8 days OR 54. 71238 months OR 656. 54856 yrs

But… � According to the Julian Mean Time listed, this data was taken on 06 -072008 at 18: 33: 36 � As of noon today, 7 -29 -11, the pulsar was 239, 147. 8 + 1139. 5 days old: 240, 287. 3 days � That equates to 659 years, 8 months, 3 days, 16 hours old.