Astronomy & Astrophysics

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{rrpfig1.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Radio guide stars are created as radio beams interfere and the air breaks down at the crests of the fringes.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.7cm,clip]{rrpfig2.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Decay and motion of the plasma spot. On the left are shown the recent few spots, and on the right their (noiseless) appearance. The two bars and arrows are estimates from this observed pattern, where the global tilt is not known.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=14.1cm,clip]{rrpfig3.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Sample simulation step: the location of the previous (cross) and current (box) beacons are the same but the decays are different (top to bottom). From left: noiseless signal, signal with noise, true locations, and results of the six estimators. The mean number of photons at the brightest pixel was twenty.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=5.4cm,clip]{rrpfig4.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Calculation of the error. At each step the difference between the estimated trace and the true trace is taken. This is the current error, equivalent to subtraction of estimated and true displacement from the previous step.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{rrpfig5.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Comparison of methods at different decay values (0.1 to 0.7 for each method), for signals up to twenty photons/pixel. The standard deviation of the beam jitter was 4 pixels, and that of the beacon size 3 pixels. Better models of the physical processes should improve all results.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{rrpfig1.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 1: Radio guide stars are created as radio beams interfere and the air breaks down at the crests of the fringes.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.7cm,clip]{rrpfig2.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Decay and motion of the plasma spot. On the left are shown the recent few spots, and on the right their (noiseless) appearance. The two bars and arrows are estimates from this observed pattern, where the global tilt is not known.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=14.1cm,clip]{rrpfig3.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: Sample simulation step: the location of the previous (cross) and current (box) beacons are the same but the decays are different (top to bottom). From left: noiseless signal, signal with noise, true locations, and results of the six estimators. The mean number of photons at the brightest pixel was twenty.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=5.4cm,clip]{rrpfig4.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: Calculation of the error. At each step the difference between the estimated trace and the true trace is taken. This is the current error, equivalent to subtraction of estimated and true displacement from the previous step.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{rrpfig5.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 5: Comparison of methods at different decay values (0.1 to 0.7 for each method), for signals up to twenty photons/pixel. The standard deviation of the beam jitter was 4 pixels, and that of the beacon size 3 pixels. Better models of the physical processes should improve all results.
Open with DEXTER