bandpasses in RM

[Arnold Rots]

I think I agree, too, but I thought the question should be raised to
make clear what our objectives are in this respect.
If it were instrumentation, one might consider splitting out the low
frequencies (say, below 100 MHz), but there is not a whole lot being
done there.
Actually, rather than papers or people, I think it's evening out
numbers of datasets (whatever that means) or plainly (and vaguely)
"astrophysical information" that counts.
I assume submillimeter will be tossed in with millimeter, and that
will, more or less, even it out

  - Arnold

Andrew Lawrence wrote:
> Re Arnold's comment: 
> 
> *In principle I agree with the seven, but wonder where submillimeter
> *falls and whether radio ought to be differentiated.  I mean, otical
> *covers just one octave, while radio comprises at least 10 octaves...
> *The distribution seems rather uneven.
> 
> as an X-ray astronomer in origin I agree in principle; we tend to refer
> to the "UVOIR" to mean anything from 10 micron to 0.1 micron. Also I am
> personally scientifically in favour of highlighting the submm ... BUT ..
> 
> .. we are not talking about density of wavelength pixels, but density of
> people and papers. My guess is that Bob's scheme gives a fairly uniform
> distribution of people-hours. So I vote for Bob's list.
> 
> 
>    andy lawrence
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold H. Rots                                Chandra X-ray Science Center
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                tel:  +1 617 496 7701
60 Garden Street, MS 67                              fax:  +1 617 495 7356
Cambridge, MA 02138                             arots at head.cfa.harvard.edu
USA                                     http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------