4.7 Article

Multifrequency observations of radio pulse broadening and constraints on interstellar electron density microstructure

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 605, 期 2, 页码 759-783

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/382680

关键词

ISM : structure; methods : data analysis; pulsars : general radio; continuum : general; scattering

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have made observations of 98 low Galactic latitude pulsars to measure pulse broadening caused by multipath propagation through the interstellar medium. Data were collected with the 305 m Arecibo telescope at four radio frequencies between 430 and 2380 MHz. We used a CLEAN-based algorithm to deconvolve interstellar pulse broadening from the measured pulse shapes. We employed two distinct pulse-broadening functions (PBFs): PBF1 is appropriate for a thin screen of scattering material between the Earth and a pulsar, while PBF2 is appropriate for scattering material uniformly distributed along the line of sight from the Earth to a pulsar. We found that some observations were better fitted by PBF1 and some by PBF2. Pulse-broadening times (tau(d)) are derived from fits of PBFs to the data and are compared with the predictions of a smoothed model of the Galactic electron distribution. Several lines of sight show excess broadening, which we model as clumps of high-density scattering material. A global analysis of all available data finds that the pulse broadening scales with frequency, v, as tau(d) proportional to v(-alpha), where alpha similar to 3.9 +/- 0.2. This is somewhat shallower than the value alpha = 4.4 expected from a Kolmogorov medium but could arise if the spectrum of turbulence has an inner cutoff at similar to300-800 km. A few objects follow particularly shallow scaling laws (the mean scaling index (alpha) similar to 3.1 +/- 0.1 and similar to3.8 +/- 0.2, respectively, for PBF1 and PBF2), which may arise from large-scale refraction or from the truncation of scattering screens transverse to the Earth-pulsar line of sight.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据