I know this looks bad ;) and ... discouraging. But non of is comes from my code. I just ploted the data from internet - from lambda. They get a nice spectra because they bin it every 25 multipoles (on average), and as Boud noticed with some weight, which I have to chack. In this way we get that few point like in the first picture I sent but the errors become smaller. They also drop all data above l approx 600. Well there is no easy way out, and much to do. Now I'm also thinking about calculating the power spectra directly from the map from MAP. Any ideas with aid of what to do it ? (witting a new code I give up - from time reasons )
bart.
oh btw. that "vast f90" you mentioned is also commercial now.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Michal Frackowiak wrote:
you must have missed something important.... it's more than a game of "show the diffrences in 2 pictures". it's a game of "check your code and do it again..." ;-)
szajtan odwieczny wrote:
well this is the thing I've been talking about on last thursday. Look at these two pictures. ;) Maeybe this kind of analysion is useless but surely it shows what problem we are dealing with here. On my plot (green dots) I chop off all negative values, all the values above 10000 for multipoles greater that 300 (which isn't a big crime), and throw out all points of which "errorbars" were bigger that the values itself. The red dots are raw data as it goes from LAMBDA.
Well perhaps (I hope ;) somewhere among green dots are those we see at the picture from NASA.
bartek
LISTNAME: shape-univ HELP: send an email to sympa@astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/shape-univ/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa@astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe shape-univ"
-
szajtan odwieczny