4.7 Article

Optical turbulence characterization at LAMOST site: observations and models

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 451, Issue 3, Pages 3299-3308

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv1165

Keywords

turbulence; atmospheric effects; instrumentation: high angular resolution; site testing

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [10903014, 11373043, 11303055]
  2. National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atmospheric optical turbulence seriously limits the performance of high angular resolution instruments. An eight-night campaign of measurements was carried out at the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fibre Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) site in 2011, to characterize the optical turbulence. Two instruments were set up during the campaign: a differential image motion monitor (DIMM) used to measure the total atmospheric seeing, and a single star Scidar (SSS) to measure the vertical profiles of the turbulence C-n(2) (h) and the horizontal wind velocity v(h). The optical turbulence parameters are also calculated with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model coupled with the Trinquet-Vernin model, which describes optical effects of atmospheric turbulence by using the local meteorological parameters. This paper presents assessment of the optical parameters involved in high angular resolution astronomy. Its includes seeing, isoplanatic angle, coherence time, coherence etendue, vertical profiles of optical turbulence intensity C-n(2) (h) and horizontal wind speed v(h). The median seeing is respectively 1.01, 1.17 and 1.07 arcsec as measured with the DIMM, the SSS and predicted with WRF model. The history of seeing measurements at the LAMOST site is reviewed, and the turbulence measurements in this campaign are compared with other astronomical observatories in the world.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available