![]() |
Figure 1:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 2:
Cartoon sketching the relation between emission,
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 3:
RMTF of a 92 cm dataset taken with the Westerbork Synthesis
Radio Telescope. There are 126 usable channels in the dataset. All
(Q,U) vectors have been derotated to
![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 4:
RMTF of the same dataset as described in
Fig. 3. This time, however, all ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 5:
Absolute value of the approximated Faraday dispersion
function of several Faraday thin sources with different spectral
indices. The ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 6:
Comparison of merit function ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 7:
Both plots show, from top to bottom, merit function ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 8: This plot shows the effect of tweaking the exact frequencies of eight sampling points. The lefthand panel shows the same RMTF as the lefthand panel of Fig. 7. In the righthand plot, however, we stretched the frequency intervals such that low frequency intervals are wider than high frequency intervals. This eliminates the resonances from the lefthand plot. |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 9:
Comparison between the standard error in RM obtained by
traditional line fitting (line) to simulated RM-synthesis experiments
where a parabola was fit to the main peak of the Faraday dispersion
function (dots). The 126 ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 10:
Comparison of Q-only RM-synthesis ( left) and Q+URM-synthesis ( right) for Faraday depths
![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 11: The three instrumental parameters that determine the output of a Faraday rotation experiment. |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure B.1:
Wavelength range: 3.6-
![]() |
![]() |
Figure B.2:
Wavelength range: 60-
![]() |
![]() |
Figure B.3:
Wavelength range: 81-
![]() |