Paper detail

Quantifying resolving power in astronomical spectra

The spectral resolving power R = lambda / delta lambda is a key property of any spectrograph, but its definition is vague because the `smallest resolvable wavelength difference' delta lambda does not have a consistent definition. Often the FWHM is used, but this is not consistent when comparing the resolution of instruments with different forms of spectral line spread function. Here two methods for calculating resolving power on a consistent scale are given. The first is based on the principle that two spectral lines are just resolved when the mutual disturbance in fitting the fluxes of the lines reaches a threshold (here equal to that of sinc^2 profiles at the Rayleigh criterion). The second criterion assumes that two spectrographs have equal resolving powers if the wavelength error in fitting a narrow spectral line is the same in each case (given equal signal flux and noise power). The two criteria give similar results, and give rise to scaling factors which can be applied to bring resolving power calculated using the FWHM on to a consistent scale. The differences among commonly encountered Line Spread Functions are substantial, with a Lorentzian profile (as produced by an imaging Fabry-Perot interferometer) being a factor of two worse than the boxy profile from a projected circle (as produced by integration across the spatial dimension of a multi-mode fibre) when both have the same FWHM. The projected circle has a larger FWHM in comparison with its true resolution, so using FWHM to characterise the resolution of a spectrograph which is fed by multi-mode fibres significantly underestimates its true resolving power if it has small aberrations and a well-sampled profile.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.