# Difference between revisions of "Estimates of delensing efficiency"

Line 8: | Line 8: | ||

The post does not contain all required information (e.g. l<sub>knee</sub> and the exponent for the 1/f contribution). Based on the corresponding pdf, I assume that for polarization l<sub>knee</sub>=800 and an exponent of -1.5. This leads to the following noise curves | The post does not contain all required information (e.g. l<sub>knee</sub> and the exponent for the 1/f contribution). Based on the corresponding pdf, I assume that for polarization l<sub>knee</sub>=800 and an exponent of -1.5. This leads to the following noise curves | ||

− | [[File:NTT01_pess_NL.png| | + | [[File:NTT01_pess_NL.png|400px]] |

[[File:NTT01_pess_wl.png|500px]] | [[File:NTT01_pess_wl.png|500px]] |

## Revision as of 01:23, 15 October 2018

**Delensing with a dedicated telescope at the pole - A _{L}=0.13**

This was the assumption made for the CDT report. At the time of writing no new reference configuration is available. The forecast for the delensing efficiency for the CDT configuration was A_{L}=0.13.

**Delensing with the large area telescopes from Chile**

Here I will rely on the recent configuration denoted 'Survey Performance Expectation 01' in the posting Survey Performance Expectations.
The post does not contain all required information (e.g. l_{knee} and the exponent for the 1/f contribution). Based on the corresponding pdf, I assume that for polarization l_{knee}=800 and an exponent of -1.5. This leads to the following noise curves

**Delensing with the large area telescopes from Chile and a dedicated LAT for delensing**

Here I will assume an additional telescope dedicated to delensing with the same characteristics as the LATs described in 'Survey Performance Expectation 01' and observing the Chile mask shown in the posting Sky masks for simulations II