A “strange” unit radio astronomy












1












$begingroup$


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







share|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    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







    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      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







      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 5 hours ago







      Jim421616

















      asked 5 hours ago









      Jim421616Jim421616

      569211




      569211






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          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 does seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but that could be simply a convention of the time.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            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
            4 hours ago











          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
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          3












          $begingroup$

          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 does seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but that could be simply a convention of the time.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            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
            4 hours ago
















          3












          $begingroup$

          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 does seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but that could be simply a convention of the time.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            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
            4 hours ago














          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          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 does seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but that could be simply a convention of the time.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          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 does seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but that could be simply a convention of the time.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 4 hours ago









          HDE 226868♦HDE 226868

          20k265125




          20k265125








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            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
            4 hours ago














          • 1




            $begingroup$
            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
            4 hours ago








          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          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
          4 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
          4 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

          Image
          In der Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland sind alle denkmalgeschützten Bauten der Stadt Friedland (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) und ihrer Ortsteile aufgelistet. Grundlage ist die Veröffentlichung der Denkmalliste des Landkreises Mecklenburgische Seenplatte (Auszug) vom 28. September 2016. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Baudenkmale nach Ortsteilen 1.1 Friedland 1.2 Bresewitz 1.3 Brohm 1.4 Cosa 1.5 Dishley 1.6 Dishley-Ausbau 1.7 Eichhorst 1.8 Glienke 1.9 Heinrichshöh 1.10 Heinrichswalde 1.11 Jatzke 1.12 Jatzke-Meierei 1.13 Liepen 1.14 Ramelow 1.15 Schwanbeck 2 Vorgesehener Denkmalbereich 3 Quelle 4 Weblinks Baudenkmale nach Ortsteilen | Friedland | ID Lage Bezeichnung Beschreibung Bild 281 An der Kleinbahn 2 Windmühle mit Umgang 282 Anklamer Straße alter Friedhof mit Portalwand 282 Anklamer Straße drei Erbbegräbnissen und Gräbern u. a. H.A. Riemann 284
          Read more

          Single-Malt-Whisky

          Image
          Fünf verschiedene schottische Single-Malt-Whiskys Als Single-Malt-Whisky oder kürzer Single Malt werden Whiskys bezeichnet, die zwei besondere Bedingungen erfüllen: Sie stammen zum ersten aus einer einzigen Brennerei, sind also kein Verschnitt aus mehreren Whiskysorten (daher Single , deutsch: einzeln). Zum zweiten wird als Getreide ausschließlich gemälzte Gerste verwendet (deswegen Malt , deutsch: Malz). Der Zusatz Single Malt wird als Prädikat verstanden, die so ausgezeichneten Whiskys sind in aller Regel besonders hochwertig. Hinzu kommt ihre besonders lange Lagerung, die Reifungszeit währt oft ein Jahrzehnt und länger. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Allgemeines 2 Herkunftsländer 2.1 Schottland 2.2 Irland 2.3 Japan 2.4 Kontinentaleuropa 3 Produktionsschritte 3.1 Mälzen 3.2 Brauen 3.3 Brennen 3.4 Reifung und Finish 3.5 Abfüllung 4 Altersangaben 5 Lagerung von Whiskyflaschen 6 Geschmacksklassifikation 7 Sonstig
          Read more

          Czorneboh

          Image
          Dieser Artikel erläutert den Berg Czorneboh, für die Gottheit siehe Czorneboh (Gottheit). Czorneboh Čornobóh Berggasthof mit Turm Höhe 555,7  m ü. NHN [1] Lage Freistaat Sachsen, Deutschland Gebirge Lausitzer Bergland Dominanz 15,4 km →  Kottmar Koordinaten 51° 7′ 11″  N , 14° 31′ 31″  O 51.119722222222 14.525194444444 555.7 Koordinaten: 51° 7′ 11″  N , 14° 31′ 31″  O Gestein Granodiorit Besonderheiten Aussichtsturm Czorneboh Der Czorneboh , obersorbisch Čornobóh , ist ein Berg zwischen Hochkirch und Cunewalde in der Oberlausitz. Er gehört zu der südöstlich von Bautzen gelegenen Czorneboh-Bergkette und ist mit einer Höhe von 555,7  m ü. NHN [1] der höchste Punkt dieses Ausläufers des Lausitzer Berglandes. Er leitet als Landschaftselement die wellige Granitlandschaft der Lausitzer Vorbergzone ein. Der Gipfel des Czorneboh liegt in der Gemarkung Meschwitz (Gemeinde Hochkirch), die Czornebohbaude jedoch
          Read more