A “strange” unit radio astronomy












2












$begingroup$


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











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    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











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      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

      574211




      574211






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          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 might seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but as the papers were published in 1964 and 1955, and the Hertz was only adopted on a large scale in 1964, the older term "cycles per second" is more fitting, given the time period.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            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
            5 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
            $endgroup$
            – Michael MacAskill
            28 mins ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
            $endgroup$
            – HDE 226868♦
            13 mins 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









          4












          $begingroup$

          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 might seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but as the papers were published in 1964 and 1955, and the Hertz was only adopted on a large scale in 1964, the older term "cycles per second" is more fitting, given the time period.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            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
            5 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
            $endgroup$
            – Michael MacAskill
            28 mins ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
            $endgroup$
            – HDE 226868♦
            13 mins ago


















          4












          $begingroup$

          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 might seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but as the papers were published in 1964 and 1955, and the Hertz was only adopted on a large scale in 1964, the older term "cycles per second" is more fitting, given the time period.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            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
            5 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
            $endgroup$
            – Michael MacAskill
            28 mins ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
            $endgroup$
            – HDE 226868♦
            13 mins ago
















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          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 might seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but as the papers were published in 1964 and 1955, and the Hertz was only adopted on a large scale in 1964, the older term "cycles per second" is more fitting, given the time period.






          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 might seem curious that the authors choose to use cycles/second instead of Hertz, but as the papers were published in 1964 and 1955, and the Hertz was only adopted on a large scale in 1964, the older term "cycles per second" is more fitting, given the time period.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 11 mins ago

























          answered 5 hours ago









          HDE 226868♦HDE 226868

          20k265125




          20k265125








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            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
            5 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
            $endgroup$
            – Michael MacAskill
            28 mins ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
            $endgroup$
            – HDE 226868♦
            13 mins ago
















          • 2




            $begingroup$
            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
            5 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
            $endgroup$
            – Michael MacAskill
            28 mins ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
            $endgroup$
            – HDE 226868♦
            13 mins ago










          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          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
          5 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
          5 hours ago




          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
          $endgroup$
          – Michael MacAskill
          28 mins ago






          $begingroup$
          I hadn't seen c/s before, but cps (cycles per second) was certainly a common abbreviation back in the olden days (and people would commonly refer to radio frequencies in units of kilocycles and megacycles, dropping the "seconds" entirely). When the SI was introduced in 1960, everyone standardised on Hz (even in the US!)
          $endgroup$
          – Michael MacAskill
          28 mins ago






          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
          $endgroup$
          – HDE 226868♦
          13 mins ago






          $begingroup$
          @MichaelMacAskill Yeah, considering when the Hertz was adopted makes the non-use of Hertz here make a lot more sense.
          $endgroup$
          – HDE 226868♦
          13 mins 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

          Ponta tanko

          Image
          Usona ponta tanko M60A1 Ponta tanko estas, simile kiel kirasita savveturilo, inter specialaj kirasitaj transportiloj. Kiel pontaj tankoj eblas konsideri ĉiujn memmovigaj rimedoj ebligantaj superi obstaklojn ĝis larĝeco 24 metroj rekte en spaco de bataloperacoj. Ties ĉefa tasko estas ebligi al la propraj taĉmentoj daŭrigi en rapida antaŭenirado sen senbezona reteniĝo. El tio pli-malpli rezultas taktikaj-teknikaj postuloj, kiujn ili devas plenumi. Precipe temas pri kapablo operacii komune kun unue-sinsekvaj taĉmentoj kaj transpontigi obstaklojn dum kelke da minutoj. This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
          Read more

          Tantalo (mitologio)

          Image
          Ĉi tiu artikolo temas pri mitologio. Por aliaj signifoj vidu la paĝon Tantalo (apartigilo) . Tantalo , laŭ Gioacchino Assereto. Laŭ la helena mitologio, Tantalo (el la greka Τάνταλος , ŝancelanta aŭ tre malfeliĉa ) estis filo de Zeŭso kaj la oceanidino Pluto, laŭ la plej divastigata versio. Li estis reĝo de Frigio [1] aŭ de la monto Sipilo, en Lidio (Malgrandazio) [2] kaj post sia morto li suferis eternan torturadon ĉe la Tartaro, la plej profunda parto de Hadeso, rezervita por la plej perversaj homoj. Tamen, kelkaj rakontoj asertas ke li estis reĝo de Argo aŭ de Korinto [3] , aŭ ke li migris norden el la monto Sipilo por akiri la tronon de Paflagonio, el kie Ilo forpelis lin pro tio, ke Tantalo forkaptis kaj seksperfortis lian fraton Ganimedon [4] , kaj tiel ofendis la diojn. Verŝajne li ankaŭ regis urbon en okcidenta Anatolio, kiun oni nomis Tantalis [5] pro li, aŭ Sipilo , pro la monto sur kies flanko ankoraŭ staras ĝiaj ruinaĵoj [6] . Laŭ la geografiisto Strabo,...
          Read more

          Erzsébet Schaár

          Image
          Erzsébet Schaár Memportreto de Erzsébet Schaár en Pécs Personaj informoj Naskiĝo 27-an de julio 1908 ( 1908-07-27 ) en Budafok Morto 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 ( 1975-08-29 ) (67-jara) en Budapeŝto Ŝtataneco Hungario Profesio skulptisto Familianoj Edz(in)o Tibor Vilt v   •   d   •   r Erzsébet Schaár [erĵEbet ŝAr], laŭ hungarlingve kutima sinsekvo Schaár Erzsébet estis hungara skulptisto. Ŝia edzo estis Tibor Vilt. Déryné Széppataki Róza en Miskolc fare de Erzsébet Schaár Erzsébet Schaár [1] naskiĝis la 27-an de julio 1908 en Budafok, ŝi mortis la 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 en Budapeŝto. Enhavo 1 Biografio 2 Elektitaj solaj ekspozicioj 3 Elektitaj kolektivaj ekspozicioj 4 Elektitaj skulptaĵoj 5 Elektitaj disĉiploj 6 Fontoj 7 Referencoj Biografio | Erzsébet Schaár studis en Industriarta Lernejo, poste en Reĝa Belarta Altlernejo (1924-1926). Ŝia ĉefinstruisto estis Zsig...
          Read more