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

          Fluorita

          Image
          Fluorita Fluorita (blau) amb pirita (daurat). Fórmula química CaF 2 Epònim fluor Localitat tipus Jáchymov Classificació Categoria Halurs Nickel-Strunz 10a ed. 3.AB.25 Nickel-Strunz 9a ed. 3.AB.25 Nickel-Strunz 8a ed. III/A.08 Dana 9.2.1.1 Heys 8.4.7 Propietats Sistema cristal·lí Cúbic Hàbit cristal·lí Sol presentar cubs; menys freqüentment dodecaedres. De vegades hexaoctaedres i tetrahexaedres. Per la combinació d'aquestes formes, les arestes dels cubs són sovint modificades. De vegades els cristalls poden presentar diferències de creixement entre les cares. Sovint s'observen cristalls compostos per sobrecreixement. Pot ser massiva, compacta, terrosa, columnar (poc freqüent), globular en agregats o botroïdal. Estructura cristal·lina a = 5.4626Å Simetria Classe (H-M): m 3 m (4/ m 3 2/ m ) - Hexoctaèdric; Grup espacial: Fm 3 m Color Blanc, groc, verd, violeta, vermell, rosa, blau o negre Mac...
          Read more

          Hulsita

          Image
          Hulsita Hulsita de la localitat tipus Fórmula química Fe 2+ 2 Fe 3+ O 2 BO 3 Epònim Alfred Hulse Brooks Localitat tipus mont Brooks, península de Seward, Nome Borough, Alaska, Estats Units Classificació Categoria borats Nickel-Strunz 10a ed. 6.AB.45 Nickel-Strunz 9a ed. 6.AB.45 Nickel-Strunz 8a ed. V/G.03 Dana 24.2.3.1 Heys 9.6.4 Propietats Sistema cristal·lí monoclínic Estructura cristal·lina a = 10,68Å; b = 3,09Å; c = 5,43Å; β = 94,15° Color negre Macles en [001]; un membre de la macla es troba girat 120° en relació a l'altre Exfoliació bona en {110} Duresa 3 Lluïssor vítria, submetàl·lica Densitat 4,28 g/cm 3 (mesurada); Més informació Estatus IMA mineral heretat (G) i mineral heretat (G) Any d'aprovació 1908 Referències [1] La hulsita és un mineral de la classe dels borats, que pertany al grup de la pinakiolita. Rep el seu nom en honor del nord-americà ...
          Read more

          Península de Txukotka

          Image
          Península de Txukotka Tipus Península Ubicació 66° N, 172° O  /  66°N , 172°O  / 66; -172 Mar mar dels Txuktxis La península de Txukotka a l'extrem oriental de Sibèria La península de Txukotka o península dels Txuktxis (en rus Чуко́тский полуо́стров , Txukotski poluóstrov ) és una península que es troba a l'extrem oriental d'Euràsia. Contingut 1 Descripció 2 Població 3 Vegeu també 4 Bibliografia Descripció L'estret de Bering, entre la península de Txukotka i la península de Seward a Alaska Foto de satèl·lit de la zona amb la península de Txukotka a l'esquerra El seu punt més extrem és el cap Dezhnev a la vora del nucli d'Uelen, un dels poquíssims llocs habitats de la zona. Al nord limita amb el mar dels Txuktxis i amb el mar de Bering al sud i amb l'estret de Bering a l'est. A la costa sud es troben la badia de Sant Lawrence i la badia de Kresta. La penínsu...
          Read more