1973
DOI: 10.1086/111506
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The low-frequency spectra of nonthermal radio sources

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
80
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 102 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
3
80
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We tested polynomial fits up to the fourth order and found that a first order polynomial function (A 0 = 1226 ± 17 and A 1 = −0.79 ± 0.008) is the best-fit model (as already pointed out by a number of authors, e.g. Roger et al 1973). We derived the expected total flux of Virgo A at the frequency of each observed LOFAR SB and rescaled the model used for that SB to match it at the beginning of each cycle of self-calibration.…”
Section: Absolute Flux Densitymentioning
confidence: 55%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We tested polynomial fits up to the fourth order and found that a first order polynomial function (A 0 = 1226 ± 17 and A 1 = −0.79 ± 0.008) is the best-fit model (as already pointed out by a number of authors, e.g. Roger et al 1973). We derived the expected total flux of Virgo A at the frequency of each observed LOFAR SB and rescaled the model used for that SB to match it at the beginning of each cycle of self-calibration.…”
Section: Absolute Flux Densitymentioning
confidence: 55%
“…To do that, we collected the total flux measurements available in the literature in the frequency range from 10 to 1400 MHz (Braude et al 1969;Bridle & Purton 1968;Roger et al 1969;Viner & Erickson 1975;Kellermann et al 1969;Wright & Otrupcek 1990). Each data-point was corrected to match the Roger et al (1973;RBC) flux scale with correction factors from Laing & Peacock (1980) and Scaife & Heald (2012). A model of the form log S = log(A 0 ) + A 1 log ν 150 MHz…”
Section: Absolute Flux Densitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We see that there is a slight but clearly significant difference in both the peak and integrated flux densities in the 7C and MSSS catalogs, in the sense that the MSSS flux densities are systematically high by about 9% (total flux density) or 6% (peak flux density). Both surveys should be tied to the flux scale of Roger et al (1973), so in principle we would not expect this systematic difference. In practice, the difference is likely due to different assumptions about the flux density of 3C 295, the reference flux calibrator for almost all the MSSS observations, which seems likely to have been the primary flux calibrator for the 7C observations as well given the RA of the field (McGilchrist et al 1990).…”
Section: Hbamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used the peak flux density of the sources in this catalogue instead of the integrated flux density because with a resolution of 54 any extended emission in WENSS will not contribute to the compact flux at ∼1 scales relevant to the LOFAR long-baseline calibration. We note that all WENSS peak flux densities in this paper include a correction factor of 0.9 with respect to the original catalogue to place them in the RCB scale (Roger et al 1973), as recommended by Scaife & Heald (2012). For the first observation we selected an area of 11.6 • radius centred on (18 h 30 m , +65 • ), or Galactic coordinates (l, b) = (94.84 • , +26.6 • ).…”
Section: Target Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 we show the distribution of flux density of the counterparts of the observed sources found in the VLSSr catalogue at 74 MHz, 4 m wavelength (Lane et al 2012(Lane et al , 2014 and the WENSS catalogue at 325 MHz, 92 cm wavelength. Like the (corrected) WENSS flux densities, the VLSSr catalogue flux scale is also set using the RCB flux density scale (Roger et al 1973). Based on these two values, we also show the distribution of the estimated flux density of the sources at 140 MHz.…”
Section: Target Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%