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
            34 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♦
            20 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
            34 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♦
            20 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
            34 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♦
            20 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 18 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
            34 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♦
            20 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
            34 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♦
            20 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
          34 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
          34 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♦
          20 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♦
          20 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

          Statuo de Libereco

          Image
          Koordinatoj: 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Statuo de Libereco angle: Statue of Liberty statuo Statuo de Libereco de antaŭe Oficiala nomo: Liberty Enlightening the World Lando  Usono Ŝtato Novjorkio Regiono Novjorko Insulo Insulo de Libereco Situo Statuo de Libereco  - koordinatoj 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Alteco de statuo 46 m  - alteco kun soklo 93 m Pezo 205 000 kg (451 948 lb) Materialoj bronzo, ŝtalo Proponinto Gustave Eiffel  - skulptisto Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi  - proponinto de soklo Richard Morris Hunt  - kapo laŭ modelo de Isabella Eugenie Boyer Transdonita 4-an de julio 1886 Por publiko alirebla por publiko Horzono OT (UTC-5)  - somera tempo OT (UTC-4) Loko
          Read more

          Tanganjiko

          Image
          Lago Tanganjiko Situo centra Afriko Ĉefaj fontoj Kalambo, Lufuko, Malagarasi kaj Ruzizi Ĉefaj elfluoj Lukugo Setlejoj Bujumbura, Kalemie Datenoj Koordinatoj 6°  S , 30°  O -6.3827777777778 29.615 782 Koordinatoj: 6°  S , 30°  O DEC Supermara alteco 782 m Surfaca areo 32 893 km² f5 Maksimuma longo 673 km f6 Maksimuma larĝo 72 km f7 Akva volumeno 18.900 km³ dep1 f8 Maksimuma profundo 1470 m f10 Averaĝa profundo 570 m f11 v   •   d   •   r Mapo de la lago Tanganjiko estas lago en orienta Afriko, inter Burundo, Kongo Kinŝasa, Tanzanio kaj Zambio. Ĝi apartenas al la Granda Rifto kaj estas unu el la Afrikaj Grandaj Lagoj. Tanzanio (46%) kaj DRK (40%) havas la majoritaton de la lago. Ĝi havas longon de 673 km, areon de ĉ. 32.900 km² kaj maksimuman profundon taksatan je 1470 metroj; pro tiu ĉi granda profundo ankaŭ ĝia volumeno estas sufiĉe granda, 18.900 km³. Oni konsi
          Read more

          Liste der Baudenkmäler in Enneberg

          Image
          Die Liste der Baudenkmäler in Enneberg (ladinisch Mareo , italienisch Marebbe ) enthält die 36 als Baudenkmäler ausgewiesenen Objekte auf dem Gebiet der Gemeinde Enneberg in Südtirol. Basis ist das im Internet einsehbare offizielle Verzeichnis der Baudenkmäler in Südtirol. Dabei kann es sich beispielsweise um Sakralbauten, Wohnhäuser, Bauernhöfe und Adelsansitze handeln. Die Reihenfolge in dieser Liste orientiert sich an der Bezeichnung, alternativ ist sie auch nach der Adresse oder dem Datum der Unterschutzstellung sortierbar. Liste | Foto   Bezeichnung Standort Eintragung Beschreibung Metadaten ja Altes Gasthaus Janesch ID: 14567 46° 42′ 54″ N, 11° 52′ 42″ O 76882557800 0 8. Sep. 1986 (BLR-LAB 4974) Ländliches Wohnhaus/Bauernhof KG:  Welschellen Bauparzelle: 391 ja Asch (Prack) ID: 14540 46° 43′ 12″ N, 11° 54′ 35″ O 75496485300 20. Nov. 1950 (MD) Ansitz KG:  Enneberg Bauparzelle: 38 ja Biccia mit Stade
          Read more