1: % Version as of April 14, 2003

2: % Some references updated

3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: \usepackage{amsbsy}

6: \input epsf

7: \textheight 9in \textwidth 6.2in \voffset -0.5in \hoffset -0.35in

8: \begin{document}

9: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}

10: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}

11: \rightline{EFI-00-14} \rightline{astro-ph/0205046}

12: \bigskip

13: \centerline{\bf A PROTOTYPE SYSTEM FOR DETECTING THE RADIO-FREQUENCY}

14: \centerline{\bf PULSE ASSOCIATED WITH COSMIC RAY AIR SHOWERS

15: \footnote{Submitted to Nucl.~Instr.~Meth.}}

16: \bigskip

17: \centerline{Kevin Green,\footnote{Present address: Louis Dreyfus

18: Corporation, Wilton, CT 06897.} Jonathan

19: L. Rosner, and Denis A. Suprun} \centerline{\it Enrico Fermi

20: Institute and Department of Physics} \centerline{\it University

21: of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637}

22: \bigskip

23: \centerline{J. F. Wilkerson}

24: \centerline{\it Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics}

25: \centerline{\it Department of Physics, University

26: of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195}

27: \bigskip

28: 

29: \centerline{\bf ABSTRACT}

30: \begin{quote}

31: The development of a system to detect the radio-frequency (RF) pulse associated

32: with extensive air showers of cosmic rays is described.  This work was

33: performed at the CASA/MIA array in Utah, with the intention of designing

34: equipment that can be used in conjunction with the Auger Giant Array.  A small

35: subset of data (less than 40 out of a total of 600 hours of running time),

36: taken under low-noise conditions, permitted upper limits to be placed on the

37: rate and strength of pulses accompanying showers with energies around

38: $10^{17}$~eV.

39: \end{quote}

40: 

41: \section{Motivation}

42: 

43: As a result of work in the 1960's and 1970's \cite{Jel,Chac,Allan,Atrash},

44: some of which continued beyond then (see, e.g., \cite{Agasa,GS,Yak,Gau}),

45: it appears that air showers of energy 10$^{17}$~eV are accompanied by

46: radio-frequency (RF) pulses \cite{Ask}, whose properties suggest that they

47: are due mainly to the separation of positive and negative charges of the shower 

48: in the Earth's magnetic field \cite{KL,SC}. The most convincing data

49: were accumulated in the 30--100~MHz frequency range. However,

50: opinions differ regarding the strength of the pulses, and

51: atmospheric and ionospheric effects have led to irreproducibility

52: of results. In particular, there may also be pulses associated

53: with cosmic-ray-induced atmospheric discharges \cite{RRW,atm}.

54: There are reports of detection at MHz or sub-MHz frequencies

55: \cite{Agasa,GS,Yak}, which could be associated with such a

56: mechanism. Signals above 100~MHz have also been reported \cite{Gau}.

57: 

58: A study was undertaken of the feasibility of equipping the Auger

59: array \cite{Auger} with the ability to detect such pulses.  The

60: higher energy of the showers to which the array would be

61: sensitive could change the parameters of detection.  Before a

62: design for large-scale RF pulse detection could be produced, it

63: was necessary to retrace some of the steps of the past 30 years

64: by searching for the pulses accompanying 10$^{17}$~eV showers,

65: and by studying some of the factors which led to their irreproducibility in

66: the past.  RF pulses may be able to provide auxiliary information about 

67: primary composition and shower height \cite{Allan}.

68: 

69: In this article we describe the prototype activity at the

70: CASA/MIA site and draw some conclusions from it regarding plans

71: for the Auger project.  We have not been able to demonstrate

72: the presence of RF pulses at CASA/MIA, and could only

73: set upper limits for their intensity.  The upper limits on

74: the rates of events in which the North-South (or East-West)

75: projection of the signal pulse was greater than some value 

76: were established at $R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu NS}>{\cal E}_\nu^0) 

77: =0.555/({\cal E}_\nu^0)^2 \ $~h$^{-1}$ and 

78: $R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)=0.889/

79: ({\cal E}_\nu^0)^2 \ $~h$^{-1}$, respectively, with ${\cal E}_\nu$ being

80: the electric field strength per unit of frequency, measured in 

81: $\mu{\rm V}/{\rm m}/{\rm MHz}$.  More concrete plans for RF detection at

82: Auger must await a prototype at the Auger site which utilizes some of the

83: lessons learned from the present work.  A preliminary description of this

84: work was presented in Ref.\ \cite{rh}.

85: 

86: In Sections 2 and 3 we discuss expectations for RF signals and

87: previous claims of their observation.  Section 4 is devoted to

88: details of the setup at CASA/MIA, including some of the reasons

89: for choosing the specific configuration utilized.  Our

90: preliminary results are given in Section 5, while Section 6 deals

91: with issues specific to a giant array such as Auger.  We

92: summarize in Section 7.  Appendix A gives details of the

93: sensitivity calculation, Appendix B establishes some properties

94: of simulated pulses, while Appendix C summarizes cost estimates

95: for an installation at the Auger site.

96: 

97: \section{Expectations}

98: 

99: We briefly summarize some expectations \cite{Allan} for the

100: characteristic of the RF signal associated with cosmic ray air

101: showers.

102: 

103: \subsection{Mechanisms of pulse generation}

104: 

105: In the 1950's, R. R. Wilson \cite{RRW} proposed that cosmic rays

106: could induce the atmosphere to act as a giant spark chamber,

107: triggering discharges of the ambient field gradient.  This

108: gradient, normally around 100 V/m, can attain values as high as

109: 10 kV/m during intense thunderstorm activity \cite{Allan}.  Thus,

110: the mechanism would lead to pulses of greatly varying intensity,

111: whose correlation with air showers would be difficult to

112: establish unless field gradients could be monitored over the

113: whole path of the discharge.

114: 

115: Another mechanism of pulse generation is associated with the

116: asymmetry in electron and positron yields in showers as a result

117: of Compton and knock-on processes.  By the end of the shower,

118: electrons outnumber positrons by about 10--25\%, leading to a

119: transient of vertically moving negative charge \cite{Ask}.  This is thought

120: to be the main mechanism for generation of radio-frequency signals from 

121: showers in solid material such as polar ice \cite{ZHS} or sand \cite{Saltz},

122: but is probably not the dominant mechanism in the atmosphere.

123: 

124: Still another source of electromagnetic radiation in a cosmic ray

125: shower involves the separation of positive and negative electric

126: charges in the Earth's magnetic field.  This is thought to be the

127: dominant mechanism accounting for atmospheric pulses with frequencies in the

128: 30 -- 100~MHz range, and will be taken as the model for the

129: signal for which the search was undertaken.

130: 

131: \subsection{Characteristic pulse}

132: 

133: The time profile of a pulse due to charge-separation in the

134: Earth's magnetic field can be modelled \cite{Allan} by assuming

135: that the bulk of the shower giving rise to the pulse is

136: concentrated between an altitude of 10 and 5 km (for a shower of

137: energy $10^{17}$~eV) and calculating the pulse duration by

138: comparing the total path lengths between the antenna and the

139: beginning and the end of the shower.  The rise time of a pulse

140: from a shower with zero zenith angle observed 200 meters from its

141: axis is expected to be about 5~ns, followed by a longer decay time

142: and a still longer recovery time with opposite amplitude (about

143: 100~ns) such that the total DC component is zero.

144: 

145: The radiation from any stage of the shower which is traveling directly

146: toward the antenna is expected to arrive to the antenna about the same time

147: as the shower itself. The difference is accounted for by the refraction index

148: of air. Such an essentially $\delta$-function pulse has the highest-frequency

149: components in its spectrum.  Showers for which the impact parameters of the

150: cores are farther from the antenna will have reduced high-frequency components

151: since the total pulse duration will be longer, approaching several microseconds

152: for vertically incident showers viewed from the side.

153: 

154: The pulse is expected to grow linearly in amplitude with shower

155: energy as a result of the increased number of particles emitting

156: RF energy.  This linear growth assumes coherence of the emitting

157: particles, which is probably a good assumption for RF wavelengths

158: of several meters. The greater penetration of the atmosphere by

159: more energetic showers also leads to an increased RF signal since

160: the radiating particles are closer to the receiver.  This should

161: make the pulse amplitude increase more rapidly than linearly with

162: primary energy. However, this effect is largely offset by the

163: fact that a greater fraction of such deeply penetrating showers

164: will have reduced high-frequency components in their pulses, as a

165: result of the greater apparent time taken by the pulse to build

166: up to its maximum amplitude at the receiver.  The combination of

167: the above three effects is expected to lead fortuitously to an

168: overall linear dependence of pulse amplitude on primary energy

169: \cite{Allan}.

170: 

171: At extremely high energies, shower particles will even be lost by

172: collision with the Earth.  This may give rise to a different type

173: of RF signal but will not be effective in the context of the

174: charge-separation mechanism considered here. The pulses

175: associated with charge separation in the Earth's magnetic field

176: should correspond to radio signals with approximately horizontal

177: polarization.  (For showers not arriving vertically from directly

178: overhead there will also be a small vertical polarization component.)

179: 

180: \subsection{RF backgrounds}

181: 

182: Discharges of atmospheric electricity constitute an important

183: source of background pulses.  These will be detected at random

184: intervals at a rate which depends strongly on local weather

185: conditions as well as on ionospheric reflections.  Man-made RF

186: sources include television and radio stations, police and other

187: communications services, broad-band sources (such as ignition

188: noise), and sources within the experiment itself.  (We shall

189: discuss such sources for the CASA/MIA array presently.)  The

190: propagation of distant noise sources to the receiver is a strong

191: function of frequency.  During years of sunspot minima (e.g.,

192: 1995--6), ionospheric propagation on frequencies above 25~MHz is

193: rare except for ``sporadic-E'' propagation, which can permit

194: signals to arrive from distances of up to 2000 km via a single

195: reflection from the ionosphere.  As solar activity increases (e.g.,

196: subsequently to 1996), consistent daytime propagation over even

197: greater distances can occur on frequencies up to and beyond 30~MHz.

198: 

199: Galactic noise can be the dominant signal in exceptionally

200: radio-quiet environments for frequencies in the low VHF (30--100

201: ~MHz) range \cite{Allan}. For higher frequencies in such

202: environments, thermal receiver noise becomes the dominant

203: effect.  We shall see that the CASA/MIA site is far from quiet

204: enough that these effects become limiting.

205: 

206: \section{Some previous observations} \label{s:Prev}

207: 

208: An early proposal involved detection of the ionization produced by air 

209: showers

210: via radar \cite{radar,PG}.  The first claim for detection of the

211: charge-separation mechanism utilized relatively narrow-band

212: techniques at 44 and 70~MHz \cite{Jel}.  A Soviet group

213: reported signals at 30~MHz \cite{Sov}, while a University of

214: Michigan group at the BASJE Cosmic Ray Station on Mt.~Chacaltaya,

215: Bolivia \cite{Chac} studied pulses in the 40--90~MHz range.  The

216: collaboration of H. R. Allan at Haverah Park in England

217: \cite{Allan} studied the dependence of signals on primary energy

218: $E_p$, perpendicular distance $R$ of closest approach of the

219: shower core, zenith angle $\theta$, and angle $\alpha$ between

220: the shower axis and the magnetic field vector. Their results

221: indicate that the electric field strength per unit of frequency,

222: ${\cal E}_\nu$, could be expressed as \beq \label{eqn:E} {\cal

223: E}_\nu = 20 \frac{E_p}{10^{17} {\rm~eV}} \sin \alpha \cos \theta

224: \exp \left( - \frac{R}{R_0(\nu, \theta)} \right)~~~\mu{\rm

225: V}~{\rm m}^{-1}~ {\rm MHz}^{-1}~~~, \eeq where $R_0$ is an increasing

226: function of $\theta$, equal (for example) to $(110 \pm 10)$ m for

227: $\nu = 55$~MHz and $\theta < 35^\circ$.

228: 

229: The Haverah Park observations are consistent with the model

230: mentioned in Section~2.2 in which the pulse's onset is generated

231: by the start of the shower at an elevation of about 10 km above

232: sea level, while its end is associated with the greater total

233: path length (shower $+$ signal propagation distance) associated

234: with the shower's absorption about 5 km above sea level. (The

235: elevation at the CASA/MIA site is about 1450 m above sea level;

236: the average atmospheric depth is 870 g/cm$^2$ \cite{CASAnim}.)

237: 

238: The Haverah Park observations were subsequently updated to

239: yield field strengths approximately 12 times weaker than

240: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:E}) \cite{Atrash}, while observations in the

241: U.S.S.R. gave field strengths approximately 2.2 times weaker than

242: (\ref{eqn:E}).  Thus, some question persists about the magnitude

243: of the effect, serving as an impetus to further measurements if

244: the RF detection technique is to be employed as part of a new

245: giant array.

246: 

247: More recent pulse detections include claims for pulses with

248: components below 500~kHz seen by observers at the AGASA array in

249: Akeno, Japan \cite{Agasa} and a group working at Yakutsk in

250: Siberia \cite{Yak}, and claims for pulses at VHF frequencies seen

251: by groups at the Gran Sasso in Italy \cite{GS} and at Gauhati

252: University in India \cite{Gau}.  There seems to be no unanimity

253: regarding the time duration, generation mechanism, or intensity

254: of these pulses.  Related methods have been used to study

255: lightning-induced pulses \cite{DSmith}.

256: 

257: \section{CASA/MIA Prototype setup}

258: 

259: \subsection{Description of the CASA/MIA detector}

260: 

261: The Chicago Air Shower Array (CASA) \cite{CASAnim} was originally

262: constituted as a rectangular grid of $33 \times 33$ stations on

263: the surface of the desert at Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway,

264: Utah.  The inter-station spacing is 15~m. A station has four 61~

265: cm $\times$ 61~cm $\times$ 1.27~cm sheets of plastic scintillator

266: each viewed by its own photomultiplier tube (PMT).  When a signal

267: appears on 3 of 4 PMTs in a station, a ``trigger request pulse''

268: of 5~mA with 5~$\mu$s duration is sent to a central trailer, where

269: a decision is made on whether to interrogate all stations for a

270: possible event.  Details of this trigger are described in

271: Ref.~\cite{CASAnim}.

272: 

273: % This is Figure 1

274: \begin{figure}

275: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5 in \epsffile{nim1.eps}}

276: \caption{Geometry of the CASA/MIA array.  Small squares denote CASA

277: stations; cross-hatched rectangles denote muon patches.

278: Large rectangle near center is the central trailer; rectangle to

279: right (east) of the array is RF trailer; symbol ``A'' denotes

280: placement of antenna.}

281: \end{figure}

282: 

283: For future reference, we shall denote the coordinates of each box

284: by $(n_x,n_y)$, where $-16 \le (n_x,n_y) \le 16$, $n_x =

285: (x/15~{\rm m})$, $n_y = (y/15~{\rm m})$, and $(x,y)$ denotes the

286: position of the center of the box to the (East,~North) of the

287: center of the array.  When this experiment was begun the CASA

288: array had already been reconfigured to remove boxes with $-16 \le

289: n_x \le -13$, i.e., the 4 westernmost ``ribs'' of the array.  For

290: runs performed in 1998, boxes with $n_x = 16$ had also been

291: removed from the array.

292: 

293: The University of Michigan collaborators designed and built a muon detection

294: array (MIA) to operate in conjunction with CASA.  It consists of

295: sixteen ``patches,'' each having 64 muon counters, buried 3~m

296: below ground at various locations in the CASA array.  (See

297: Fig.~1.) Each counter has lateral dimensions 1.9~m $\times$ 1.3~m.

298: Four of the patches, each about 45~m

299: from the center of the array, lie on the corners of a skewed

300: rectangle; four, each about 110~m from the

301: center of the array, lie on a quadrangle with slightly different

302: skewed orientation, and eight lie on the

303: sides and corners of a rectangle with sides $x \simeq \pm 180$~m

304: and $y \simeq \pm 185$~m.

305: 

306: In April of 1991 the CASA/MIA array was partially disabled by a

307: lightning strike which hit one of the few trees on the site.  The

308: array was repaired, and an extensive lightning-protection grid

309: installed.  The grid consisted of wires strung on poles about 

310: 15~feet above the array, traveling in the $x$, $y$, and $x \pm y$

311: directions.  This grid turned out to have significant effect on

312: our choice of parameters for the RF studies.

313: 

314: During the operation of the present experiment, 144 surface

315: \v{C}erenkov detectors \cite{BLANCA} were distributed throughout

316: the array.  Other additions to the array, which shall not concern

317: us, included a stereographic atmospheric \v{C}erenkov

318: detector (DICE) \cite{DICE} and an optical facility for

319: communicating with a high-resolution atmospheric fluorescence

320: detector (HiRes) \cite{HiRes} located on a hilltop several miles away.

321: 

322: \subsection{Initial RF surveys at CASA/MIA site}

323: 

324: In order to determine whether RF pulse detection was feasible at

325: the CASA site, a spectrum analyzer was used to make a broad

326: survey of the RF noise at the CASA site in various frequency

327: ranges and at various locations.  It was determined that in the

328: central trailer, the broad-band noise associated with various

329: computers, switching power supplies, and other electronics was so

330: intense that no RF searches could be undertaken.  The same was

331: true to a great extent at any position within the perimeter of

332: the lightning-protection grid.  Moreover, it was deemed unsafe to

333: erect an antenna above that grid within the perimeter of the

334: array, since any projecting object would defeat the purpose of

335: the grid.

336: 

337: Surveys just outside the array indicated a much quieter RF

338: environment.  An antenna was placed about 24 m east of box

339: (16,0), corresponding to $x = 263.8$ m, $y=0$ m, and its signal

340: fed into a trailer located about 10 m closer to the array.  All

341: further studies were performed using this configuration. (See

342: Fig.\ 1.)  Nonetheless, there still remained a number of

343: identifiable noise sources, which we now describe.

344: 

345: \subsubsection{Television and FM broadcast stations} \label{ss:TVFM}

346: 

347: The CASA/MIA site is about 100~km southwest of Salt Lake City, at

348: first sight affording a reasonably quiet RF environment.

349: However, many television and FM stations in Salt Lake City

350: broadcast from a high mountain about 35~km southwest of Salt Lake

351: City, or 65~km northeast of Dugway.  These are responsible for a

352: major component of the RF signal in the range which is of

353: greatest interest to us.  As an example, we summarize the VHF

354: television stations broadcasting from the above site \cite{TV} in

355: Table~1.  The video and audio frequencies shown are carrier

356: frequencies.  Video signals are modulated with vestigial-sideband

357: modulation, occupying the range from 1.25~MHz below the carrier

358: frequency to about 3.5~MHz above it.  A color subcarrier lies

359: 3.58~MHz above the video carrier.  Audio signals are frequency

360: modulated with deviation not exceeding 250~kHz so as to remain

361: within the total allotted bandwidth of 6~MHz for each channel.

362: The FM broadcast band, extending from 88 to 108~MHz, is packed

363: with strong signals, with the strongest typically spaced by the

364: 0.8~MHz interval characteristic of inter-station spacing in a large urban

365: area.

366: 

367: % This is Table 1

368: \begin{table}

369: \caption{Television stations broadcasting from site 65 km

370: northeast of Dugway.}

371: \begin{center}

372: \begin{tabular}{l c c r r r} \hline

373: Call sign & Channel &   Band   &  Video &  Audio & Power \\

374:           &         &   (MHz)  &  (MHz) &  (MHz) &  (kW) \\ \hline

375: KUTV      & 2       &  54--60  &  55.25 &  59.75 &  45.7 \\

376: KTVX      & 4       &  66--72  &  67.25 &  71.75 &  32.4 \\

377: KSL-TV    & 5       &  76--82  &  77.25 &  81.75 &  33.9 \\

378: KUED      & 7       & 174--180 & 175.25 & 179.75 & 155.0 \\

379: KULC      & 9       & 186--192 & 187.25 & 191.75 & 166.0 \\

380: KBYU-TV   & 11      & 198--204 & 199.25 & 203.75 & 162.0 \\

381: KSTU      & 13      & 210--216 & 211.25 & 215.75 & 112.0 \\ \hline

382: \end{tabular}

383: \end{center}

384: \end{table}

385: 

386: \subsubsection{CASA noise}

387: 

388: The CASA boards contain crystals oscillating at various

389: frequencies, including 16, 20, and 50~MHz.  The behavior of a

390: single CASA board was investigated at the University of Chicago.

391: The various clock signals were detected at short distances ($< 1$

392: ~m) from the board, but a much more intense set of harmonics of 78

393: ~kHz emanated from the switching power supplies.  These harmonics

394: persisted well above 100~MHz.  At 144--148~MHz (monitored using

395: an amateur radio transceiver), they overlapped, leading to

396: intense broad-band noise.

397: 

398: The above signals were considerably less problematic at the RF

399: trailer. During CASA operation the boards' clock frequencies and

400: some of their harmonics (including 32, 40, and 48~MHz) were

401: detectable.  However, noise from the switching power supplies

402: seemed to be at an acceptably low level.

403: 

404: The CASA boards emit powerful RF pulses when digitizing and

405: transmitting data. These pulses constituted a major background to

406: our RF search, and will be discussed in Section 5.  The noise

407: arrived through the antenna system and not through the trigger

408: cable or antenna feed cable, as was determined by acquiring data

409: with a dummy load in place of the antenna.

410: 

411: \subsubsection{Intermittent narrow-band interference}

412: 

413: In addition to persistent RF carriers from TV and FM broadcast

414: stations, intermittent signals would appear from time to time.

415: The strongest of these was traced to local narrow-band FM

416: communications.  This signal was so strong that digital filtering

417: methods (to be described below) were powerless to eliminate it.

418: Consequently, any event containing such a signal was discarded

419: for further analysis.

420: 

421: 

422: \subsubsection{Low-frequency interference sources}

423: 

424: Although the majority of survey work dealt with frequencies above

425: 25~MHz, some effort was made to reproduce claims of low-frequency

426: (``LF'') pulses \cite{Agasa}, which for our purposes will be

427: taken to involve frequencies below 500~kHz.  (The AM broadcast

428: band contains numerous signals above 530~kHz, preventing the

429: study of higher frequencies.) Initial surveys were performed

430: using a Sony SW-7600G all-band portable receiver and an ICOM

431: IC-706 amateur transceiver.  However, considerably greater

432: sensitivity was achieved using a Palomar VLF converter which

433: converts the band 10--500~kHz to 3510--4000~kHZ, which was then

434: detected using the IC-706.

435: 

436: The major source of interference at the site was a nondirectional

437: aircraft beacon (NDB) operating at the Dugway airport on 284

438: ~kHz.  Other NDBs and other LF carriers above about 110~kHz were

439: detectable but considerably weaker. A custom-made filter was

440: procured \cite{LFfil} to suppress the carrier at 284~kHz and

441: signals from the AM broadcast band above 500~kHz.  This filter was

442: employed during some of the low-frequency studies to be described

443: below.

444: 

445: \subsection{Measurement considerations and initial setup}

446: 

447: As mentioned above, the location of the receiving antenna (about

448: 30~m east of the edge of the CASA array, at $x = 263.8$~m, $y =

449: 0$~m), was dictated by a compromise between proximity to the

450: array and reduction of noise.  This noise was carried, to a large

451: extent, by the lightning-protection grid which overlays the array.

452: 

453: It was decided at an early stage to concentrate on the search for

454: horizontally polarized pulses as described in Section 2.

455: Consequently, a broad-band antenna with linear polarization was

456: adopted.  Initial surveys were taken with one of the original

457: antennas from the Mt.~Chacaltaya experiments \cite{Chac}, which

458: had been preserved from the 1960s.  This antenna was a large model

459: manufactured for VHF television reception, with some elements

460: which had been added by the experimenters to improve

461: low-frequency response.

462: 

463: The Mt.~Chacaltaya antenna was mounted on a portable searchlight

464: tower attached to a small trailer.  The tower could be extended

465: to a height of about 35 feet. The antenna was slightly damaged in

466: a collapse of the tower as a result of improper latching

467: procedures.  As insurance against further such incidents, a

468: portable military surplus log-periodic antenna was acquired. This

469: antenna (a Dorne and Margolin model to be described below)

470: was found to have superior response in the frequency

471: range of interest and very robust construction (even surviving a

472: subsequent tower collapse), and was adopted for subsequent studies.

473: 

474: The antenna was

475: mounted on the fully-extended searchlight tower with its center

476: at a height of 35 feet above ground, with the favored direction

477: of reception arriving from the zenith, and with arbitrary

478: azimuthal orientation.  Data were taken with two orientations:

479: ``East-West'' polarization and ``North-South'' polarization, both

480: referred to magnetic North (14$^\circ$ east of true North

481: \cite{mag} at Dugway).  In addition, a projecting arm of the

482: mounting bracket was used to suspend a 10-meter-long vertical

483: antenna which was used for the low-frequency surveys.

484: 

485: The bandwidth to be covered by the RF search was not initially

486: specified, but to be determined by experience with survey

487: experiments.  Consequently, two main modes were used, a

488: narrow-band mode and a broad-band mode.  These are compared in

489: Table~2, where we also list a low-frequency mode used in the LF

490: survey. Their implementation is described in Sec.~\ref{ss:filt}.

491: 

492: % This is Table 2

493: \begin{table}

494: \caption{Modes of filtering.  (a) Suppression at 284~kHz and

495: above 500~kHz in some runs.}

496: \begin{center}

497: \begin{tabular}{c c} \hline

498: Mode & 3~dB bandpass (MHz) \\ \hline

499: Narrow-band & 25--35 \\

500: Broad-band & 25--250 \\

501: Low-frequency & 0.05--2.5 (a) \\ \hline

502: \end{tabular}

503: \end{center}

504: \end{table}

505: 

506: Some previous investigations (e.g., \cite{Chac} and \cite{Allan})

507: were able to detect RF pulses using a ``stand-alone'' trigger

508: based on the reception of transients alone.  This possibility was

509: investigated using a broad-band receiver with filters admitting

510: several different frequency ranges, and demanding coincidences of

511: signals received in a minimum number of channels.  It was found that

512: the vast majority of such transients at the Dugway site were not associated

513: with CASA/MIA events; they were probably due to atmospheric discharges. 

514: Such ``stand-alone'' transients, in fact, were found to increase during

515: periods of enhanced atmospheric electrical activity.  As a result, our main

516: results concern RF data taken with a trigger based on large CASA/MIA events.

517: We comment further on the possibility of a ``stand-alone'' trigger for

518: future experiments in Section~6.4.

519: 

520: The trigger was formed at the central CASA/MIA trailer, in a

521: manner to be described in detail below.  It was communicated to

522: the RF trailer over RG-59 cable.  The electrical length of the cable was 

523: found to correspond to a pulse delay of 2.15~$\mu$s.  No evidence for

524: pickup of this trigger pulse from the antenna was found.  Other

525: methods considered, and rejected in favor of the simpler

526: electrical communication, included optical fiber and infrared

527: sensors.

528: 

529: \subsection{Design features}

530: 

531: \subsubsection{Antenna system}

532: 

533: A portable log-periodic antenna manufactured by Dorne and Margolin, Model

534: \# DM ARM 160-5, with a nominal response of 30--76~MHz, was acquired from

535: FairRadio Co.~in Lima, Ohio, for about

536: \$60.  (A spare was used for noise studies at the University of

537: Washington.) Overload protection was provided by two 1N4148

538: diodes of opposite polarity connected across the antenna

539: terminals, leading to a maximum output voltage of about $\pm 0.6$~

540: V.  A gas discharge tube manufactured by Alpha/Delta provided

541: lightning protection.  Some properties of the antenna are

542: summarized in Table 3.

543: 

544: % This is Table 3

545: \begin{table}

546: \caption{Properties of log-periodic antenna used for RF studies}

547: \begin{center}

548: \begin{tabular}{l c} \hline

549: Nominal frequency range (MHz) & 30--76 \\

550: Usable frequency range (MHz) & 28--170 \\

551: Number of elements & 9 \\

552: Dimensions (m) & $3 \times 3$ \\

553: Feedline RG-58U & 60 feet \\ \hline

554: \end{tabular}

555: \end{center}

556: \end{table}

557: 

558: \subsubsection{RF front-end}

559: 

560: The RF amplification stage consisted primarily of one or two

561: ZFL-500LN low-noise broad-band preamplifiers manufactured by

562: Mini-Circuits, and for certain runs low-noise preamplifiers

563: manufactured by ANZAC.  Specifications of these preamplifiers are

564: summarized in Table 4.

565: 

566: % This is Table 4

567: \begin{table}

568: \caption{Properties of preamplifiers used for RF studies}

569: \begin{center}

570: \begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline

571: Manufacturer &   Model    & DC power & Gain & Frequency \\

572:              &            &   (V)    & (dB) & range (MHz) \\ \hline

573: Mini-Circuits & ZFL-500LN &  13.6    &  26  &  DC--500  \\

574: ANZAC        &   AM-107   &   18     &  10  &   1--500  \\ \hline

575: \end{tabular}

576: \end{center}

577: \end{table}

578: 

579: \subsubsection{Filtering} \label{ss:filt}

580: 

581: Table 5 contains a summary of all filters used in the experiment

582: with the exception of the 284~kHz filter \cite{LFfil} described

583: previously. These filters are manufactured by Mini-Circuits; they

584: were obtained with tubular cases fitted with BNC connectors.

585: 

586: % This is Table 5

587: \begin{table}

588: \caption{Filters used in RF data acquisition}

589: \begin{center}

590: \begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline

591: Model &    Type     & 3~dB point(s) \\

592:       &             & (MHz) \\ \hline

593: BLP-1.9 & Low-pass  & 2.5 \\

594: BHP-25  & High-pass & 25 \\

595: BLP-30  & Low-pass  & 35 \\

596: BBP-30  & Bandpass  & 25, 35 \\

597: BLP-250 & Low-pass  & 250 \\ \hline

598: \end{tabular}

599: \end{center}

600: \end{table}

601: 

602: A typical ``narrow-band'' configuration described in Table~2

603: involved feeding the signal from the antenna through the feedline,

604: a BHP-25 filter and a BLP-30 filter with combined 3~dB points of 25 and 35

605: ~MHz, a ZFL-500LN preamplifier with 26~dB of gain, a BBP-30 filter

606: with 3~dB points 25 and 35~MHz, another Mini-Circuits ZFL-500LN

607: preamplifier with 26~dB of gain, and a BHP-250 filter to suppress

608: any high-frequency noise.  (Some data runs involved permutations

609: of these components.  The above configuration was  found to

610: minimize feed-through of preamplifier noise.  Some runs involved

611: a dual ANZAC preamplifier instead of a ZFL-500LN.)

612: 

613: A ``broad-band'' configuration involved the same feedline and

614: BHP-25 filter, a single ZFL-500LN preamplifier, and a BLP-250 filter.  A

615: ``low-frequency'' configuration involved the feedline,

616: a BLP-1.9 filter and a

617: ZFL-500LN preamplifier, with a 284~kHz notch filter inserted

618: before or after the BLP-1.9 in some runs.  The notch filter also

619: contained a roll-off above 500~kHz.

620: 

621: 

622: \subsubsection{``Large-event'' trigger and design}

623: 

624: A trigger based on the coincidence of seven of the eight outer

625: muon ``patches'' (see Fig.~1) was set to select ``large'' showers

626: in the following manner. Each muon patch was set to produce a

627: trigger pulse of length 5~$\mu$s and amplitude $-120$~mV when $n$

628: of its 64 counters registered a minimum-ionizing pulse within $5.2$

629: ~$\mu$s of one another.  For engineering runs (until 12/28/96),

630: $n$ was set equal to 4, while for later runs it was increased to

631: 5 to favor larger showers and reduce noise.  The pulses

632: were then combined in two groups of 4, feeding through two 2X

633: attenuators into two fan-in/fan-outs (to avoid saturation of

634: inputs) and the resulting pulses further combined to produce a

635: summed pulse.  This signal was fed to a LeCroy 821 Discriminator,

636: whose output was amplified to an amplitude of about $-6$~V and

637: then sent over RG-59 cable to the RF trailer (see Fig.\ 1).  The

638: trigger pulse at the RF trailer had an amplitude of about $-2.4$

639: ~V and a duration of $1~\mu$s.

640: 

641: The above trigger was estimated to correspond to a minimum shower

642: energy of somewhat below $10^{16}$~eV, based on the integral rate

643: \cite{REF} at $10^{18}$~eV of 0.17/km$^2$/day/sr. At this level

644: good correlation could be established between trigger pulses and

645: events recorded by the CASA data acquisition system. 

646: 

647: Only shower radiation that is stronger than 3~$\mu$V$/$m$/$MHz can exceed the

648: average noise level at CASA site by three standard deviations or more

649: [Sec.~4.6]. According to the original Haverah Park results [Eq.~(\ref{eqn:E})],

650: a typical shower that would lead to such radiation is a vertical shower of

651: energy $10^{17}$~eV or higher at a distance of 210~m. If the rate for showers

652: with energy greater than $E$ behaves as $1/E^2$, showers above $10^{17}$~eV

653: would be expected to occur with a rate of 17/km$^2$/day/sr.  Since RF detection

654: relies on muon triggering, the antenna can only detect radiation from those

655: showers whose cores pass inside the rectangle of the array. Just about

656: 0.06~km$^2$ of the array area lies inside the 210~m radius from the antenna.

657: With the solid angle of observation limited by a zenith angle of 50$^\circ$,

658: one expects about 2.25 detectable shower pulses per day.

659: 

660: \subsubsection{Data acquisition}

661: 

662: A Tektronix TDS-540B digitizing oscilloscope registered filtered

663: and preamplified RF data on a rolling basis. These data were

664: captured and stored on hard disk using a National Instruments

665: GPIB interface upon receipt of a large-event trigger.  Data were

666: taken using various computers at different times, allowing

667: for analysis both at the University of Washington and at

668: Chicago.  The Washington system used a Macintosh Quadra 950

669: running Labview, with a latency time of about 8 seconds between

670: events, while the Chicago system used either a Dell XPS200s desktop

671: or a Dell Latitude LM laptop running a C program adapted from those

672: provided by National Instruments, with a latency time of about 2 seconds.

673: Each trigger caused 50~$\mu$s of RF data, centered around the

674: trigger and acquired at 1~GSa/s, to be saved.

675: 

676: \subsubsection{Rates and off-line processing}

677: 

678: The total trigger rate ranged between about 20 and 50 events per

679: hour, depending on the value of $n = 4$ or $5$ of muon counters

680: chosen to generate a patch trigger pulse and on intermittent

681: sources of noise sometimes present in the trigger system.

682: Concurrently, the CASA on-line data acquisition system was

683: instructed via a special program called MUTRIG to write files of

684: events in which at least 7 out of the 8 outermost muon patches

685: produced a patch pulse.  These files, one for each CASA run,

686: typically overlapped with the records taken at the RF trailer to

687: a good but not perfect extent \cite{mutrig} as a result of occasional noise 

688: on

689: the trigger line.  Moreover, an undiagnosed timing problem

690: occasionally caused the loss of a muon trigger pulse for certain

691: large events recorded by MUTRIG.

692: 

693: \subsubsection{Off-line overload rejection}

694: 

695: Events were typically recorded at a gain such that the maxima and

696: minima corresponded to about 2/3 of the dynamic range of the

697: oscilloscope's 8-bit data acquisition system (ranging from $-128$

698: to $127$ digitization units). Local intermittent monochromatic RF

699: signals occasionally saturated this dynamic range.  Such events

700: were rejected off-line by discarding any cases in which the

701: maxima and minima exceeded 100 digitization units.

702: In the configuration used for the final bounds on pulse amplitudes,

703: corresponding to an oscilloscope setting of 5~mV per division of 25

704: digitization units, we thus rejected all signals corresponding to

705: preamplifier peak outputs greater than $\pm 20$~mV.  In some cases, with

706: oscilloscope settings of 20~mV per division, we rejected signals with

707: preamplifier peak outputs greater than $\pm 80$~mV.  In all cases these

708: voltages were well below the manufacturer's specified limit of

709: $\pm 400 \sqrt{2}$~mV (3~dBm), and within a satisfactorily linear range of

710: preamplifier response.

711: 

712: \subsubsection{Calibration}

713: 

714: The average gain $G_{ant}$ of the antenna in its forward direction rises 

715: from about 3~dBi (decibels with respect to an isotropic radiator)

716: at 30~MHz to a peak of about 5~dBi at 50~MHz, slowly decreasing

717: to 4~dBi at 76~MHz \cite{PM}.  We shall take an average

718: gain of 4~dBi ($G_{ant}=2.5$) over the frequency range of interest.

719: 

720: More precise calibration would involve modelling of the gain

721: pattern using a program such as EZNEC \cite{EZNEC}, and integrating

722: over directions of expected signal arrival.

723: This modelling also would have been useful in order to emulate the

724: frequency-dependent phase distortion induced by the antenna, but it was

725: not found possible to obtain a sufficiently close fit to the antenna's

726: measured standing-wave-ratio characteristics to take such a model

727: seriously.  Certainly this point should be addressed in any future

728: studies.  One might also utilize

729: sources of known strength such as amateur radio satellites

730: broadcasting on 29.4~MHz, FM and television stations, and galactic and

731: solar noise.  The existing data contain signals from FM and television

732: stations broadcasting near Dugway, some of whose field strengths are well

733: enough known that they may be usable for calibration.  Alternatively, for

734: future work it would be helpful to calibrate antennas on an antenna range

735: at some distance from an impulse generator, broadcasting through a

736: broad-band antenna with already-determined characteristics.

737: 

738: \subsection{Signal processing}

739: 

740: \subsubsection{Fourier methods} \label{ss:Four}

741: 

742: In order to remove strong Fourier components associated with

743: signals which were approximately constant over the duration of

744: each data record, a short MATLAB routine was written to perform

745: the fast Fourier transform of the signal and renormalize the

746: large Fourier components to a given maximum intensity.  Fig.~2

747: shows the fast Fourier transform of a typical RF signal before

748: and after this procedure was applied. In each case the data were

749: acquired using the ``wide-band'' filter configuration, whose

750: response cuts off sharply below 23~MHz.

751: 

752: % This is Figure 2

753: \begin{figure}

754: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5 in \epsffile{nim2.eps}} \caption{Top

755: panel: Fourier spectrum (in arbitrary units) of RF signals

756: acquired at Dugway site using high-pass 25~MHz and low-pass 

757: 250~MHz filters. Prominent features include video and audio carriers

758: for TV Channels 2, 4, 5, 7, and 11 (see Table 1 for frequencies),

759: and the FM broadcast band between 88 and 108~MHz. Bottom panel:

760: Fourier spectrum (same vertical scale) after renormalization of

761: large Fourier components to a magnitude chosen here to be $3.16

762: \times 10^3$.  In practice best sensitivity to transients was

763: obtained by renormalizing to a magnitude of $10^3$.}

764: \end{figure}

765: 

766: The effect of digital filtering on detectability of a transient is

767: illustrated in Fig.~3.  The top panel shows the RF record whose

768: Fourier transform was given in Fig.~2, on which has been

769: superposed a simulated transient of peak amplitude 14.5

770: digitization units. (The data acquisition scale ranges from $-128$

771: to $+127$ digitization units; one scale division on the

772: oscilloscope corresponds to 25 units.)  The transient is invisible

773: beneath the large amplitude associated with television and FM

774: radio signals.  The middle panel shows the result after

775: application of the Fourier coefficient shrinkage algorithm.

776: 

777: % This is Figure 3

778: \begin{figure}

779: \centerline{\epsfysize = 7.5 in \epsffile{nim3.eps}}

780: \caption{Effect of Fourier coefficient shrinkage on detectability

781: of a transient.  Top panel:  raw RF record (in arbitrary units)

782: with simulated signal superposed.  Middle panel:  record (same

783: scale) after Fourier coefficient shrinkage.  Here a maximum

784: Fourier coefficient magnitude of $10^3$ (in the units of Fig.~2)

785: has been imposed.  Bottom panel: the same record after denoising

786: with a 10-point symmlet level $L=4$ routine \cite{DFS}.}

787: \end{figure}

788: 

789: The event in Figs.~2 and 3 consisted of 32,768 data points

790: obtained at a 1~ns sampling interval, with the trigger at the

791: 20,000th point.  The frequency resolution in the fast Fourier

792: transform is thus 500~MHz (the Nyquist frequency) divided by

793: 16,384, or about 30~kHz.  This permits rather fine distinction

794: between frequencies containing a strong carrier and those which

795: correspond to its weaker sidebands.  At the same time, it permits

796: time resolution to be preserved, allowing for the examination of

797: rather rapid transients.  To the extent that these transients do

798: not contain Fourier coefficients exceeding a pre-determined

799: threshold, they should be relatively unaffected by the shrinkage

800: algorithm in the absence of interfering signals. However, since

801: at Dugway signals in nearly the whole FM band (88--108~MHz)

802: exceed the threshold, some distortion is unavoidable

803: using such a method.  In obtaining bounds on pulse amplitudes we therefore

804: employ a method involving the comparison of Fourier power in a given

805: time window with the average power obtained over the whole data record

806: for each Fourier component.  This method is described below. 

807: 

808: 

809: \subsubsection{Time-frequency analyses} \label{ss:tfa}

810: 

811: One can perform a fast Fourier transform using a small time

812: window (typically 1024~ns) which is advanced sequentially through

813: the data record, typically in steps of 100~ns.  The frequency

814: resolution of any given ``snapshot'' is then 500~MHz divided by

815: (typically) 512, or a bit better than 1~MHz.  A two-dimensional

816: display of time vs.~frequency then allows one to distinguish

817: short transients (with components over many frequency bins) from

818: continuous RF sources (with components in narrow frequency ranges

819: over the entire time record).  One such plot appears in Fig.~11,

820: Sec.~5.3.1, below. In practice one may wish to suppress

821: frequencies corresponding to the whole FM band and known TV

822: stations, so as not to overload the dynamic range of the

823: display.  An alternative method \cite{Gross} is to renormalize

824: each point in time--frequency space so that {\it deviations} from

825: the average in each frequency bin are displayed.  This method is

826: described further in Sec.~5.2. 

827: It was used for the main part of data analysis.

828: 

829: 

830: \subsubsection{Wavelet techniques}

831: 

832: The wavelet package {\tt Wavelab} \cite{WL} contains a denoising

833: routine which was adapted for our purposes.  While an exhaustive

834: search for optimized methods was not performed, good results in

835: reducing noise levels were obtained using a 10-point symmlet

836: routine with level $L=4$ \cite{DFS}.  An example of a denoised

837: signal is shown in the bottom panel of Fig.~3.  Here a simulated

838: signal of positive peak amplitude 14.5 digitization units has been

839: added to an RF record otherwise free of transients. The effect of

840: wavelet denoising is to reduce the amplitude of random

841: high-frequency fluctuations while preserving edge effects such as

842: transients.

843: 

844: \subsection{Signal simulation}

845: 

846: We wished to quantify the improvement associated with each method

847: of signal processing.  We thus simulated the expected signal by

848: generating it using an arbitrary waveform generator, feeding it

849: through the same preamplifier and filter configurations used for

850: data acquisition, and superposing it on records otherwise free of

851: transients.  We successively reduced the amplitude of the

852: superposed test signal until it could not be distinguished from

853: random noise peaks, thereby obtaining an estimate of sensitivity.

854: 

855: A Hewlett-Packard Arbitrary Waveform Generator was used to

856: generate signals whose characteristics are illustrated in Fig.~4.

857: These signals were taken to have the form $f(t) = \theta(t)

858: At^2(e^{-Bt} - C e^{-Dt})$ with the coefficient $C$ chosen so

859: that $f(t)$ has no DC component, and $D$ corresponding to a long

860: duration of the negative-amplitude component.  For all pulses we

861: chose $D = B/20$, so that $C = (8000)^{-1}$ cancels the DC

862: component.  The Fourier components of the test pulse fall off

863: smoothly with frequency.  The initial $t^2$ behavior was chosen

864: so that both the test pulse and its first derivative vanish at

865: $t=0$, as might be expected for a pulse from a developing shower.

866: 

867: The simulated pulses are summarized in Table 6.  Instead of

868: quoting the value of $A$, we quote the maximum positive value of

869: the pulse, both before and after filtration and preamplification.

870: These values of $V_{\rm pk}$ reflect choices for convenience in display on

871: the oscilloscope, and are otherwise arbitrary.

872: 

873: % This is Figure 4

874: \begin{figure}

875: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5 in \epsffile{nim4.eps}}

876: \caption{Analytic depiction of typical pulse presented to

877: filter-preamplifier configuration.  Top panel:  time dependence

878: of pulse $f(t) = \theta(t) t^2[e^{-0.4t} - e^{-0.02t}/ 8000] (t$

879: in ns); bottom panel: Fourier spectrum of pulse 

880: (calculated analytically). In the top

881: panel, the short bar above the pulse denotes $\delta$, the time difference

882: between onset and maximum, while the longer bar below the pulse denotes

883: $\Delta$, the duration of the positive component.}

884: \end{figure}

885: 

886: % This is Table 6

887: \begin{table}

888: \caption{Parameters of test signals.  $\delta$ is the time

889: between pulse onset and maximum, while $\Delta$ is the duration

890: of the positive component of the pulse.  $V_{\rm pk}$ is the peak

891: (positive) input voltage to the filter-preamplifier

892: configuration.  The letter after the peak voltage denotes (a)

893: narrow-band (25-35~MHz) or (b) broad-band ($> 25$~MHz)

894: configuration (see Sec.~\ref{ss:filt}).  $V_{\rm out}$ is the

895: peak-to-peak amplitude of the pulse emerging from the

896: filter-preamplifier configuration. $S$ is the scale factor with

897: which data were recorded on oscilloscope.}

898: \begin{center}

899: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline

900: $B$ & $\delta$ & $\Delta$ & $V_{\rm pk}$ & $V_{\rm out}$ & S  \\

901: (ns$^{-1}$) &   (ns)   &    (ns)  &  (mV)   & (mV) & (mV/div) \\

902: \hline

903:    0.8      &   2.5    &    12    &  1.2 (a) &  86  &   20    \\

904:             &          &          &  6.0 (b) & 124  &   20    \\

905:    0.4      &    5     &    24    &  0.7 (a) &  70  &   20    \\

906:             &          &          &  1.3 (b) &  21  &    5    \\

907:    0.2      &   10     &    47    &  0.7 (a) &  71  &   10    \\

908:             &          &          &  7.0 (b) &  67  &   10    \\

909:    0.1      &   20     &    95    &  1.5 (a) &  75  &   10    \\

910:             &          &          &  7.6 (b) &  32  &    5    \\ \hline

911: \end{tabular}

912: \end{center}

913: \end{table}

914: 

915: The shape of the pulse of Fig.~4 is affected by preamplification

916: and filtration as shown in Figs.~5 (broad-band) and 6

917: (narrow-band). The noise in these figures and the sharp feature

918: at 125~MHz in Fig.~5 are associated with the system used to

919: generate the test pulse, and the fact that the Fourier transform

920: is taken over a much longer time than the duration of the pulse.

921: 

922: Systematic studies of signal-to-noise ratios have been performed

923: so far only for the simulated pulses with $\delta=5$~ns applied

924: to a broad-band front end [(b) in Table 6].  The value of

925: $\delta$ is a measure of the distance $R$ of closest approach of

926: the shower core \cite{Allan}.  This choice corresponds to a

927: typical distance $R \simeq 200$~m.  A typical pulse of this type

928: gave a front end output of 21~mV peak-to-peak, acquired at an

929: oscilloscope sensitivity of 5~mV per division.  Each division

930: corresponds to 25 digitization units, so the peak-to-peak range

931: is about 104 digitization units, or slightly less than half the

932: dynamic range (255 units, or 8 bits).  Positive and negative

933: peaks are thus about 52 digitization units each.

934: 

935: The stored test signal is then multiplied by a scale factor and

936: added algebraically to a collection of RF records in which, in

937: general, randomly occurring transients will be present.  One then

938: inspects these records to see if the transient can be

939: distinguished from random noise.

940: 

941: % This is Figure 5

942: \begin{figure}

943: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5 in \epsffile{nim5.eps}} \caption{Test

944: pulse of Fig.~4 after broad-band filtration ($> 25$~MHz) and

945: preamplification. Top panel:  time dependence of pulse; bottom

946: panel: Fourier spectrum of recorded pulse for $-20~\mu {\rm s}

947: \le t \le 12.768~\mu$s.}

948: \end{figure}

949: 

950: For the broad-band data we estimated that pulses with input

951: voltages corresponding to about 1/5 the original test pulse amplitude can

952: be distinguished from average noise (not from noise spikes!).

953: Since the original test pulse had a peak value of 1.3~mV, this

954: corresponds to sensitivity to an antenna output of about $V_{\rm

955: pk} \simeq 260~\mu$V.  The ability to detect such a pulse with an

956: effective bandwidth of about 30~MHz corresponds to a threshold

957: sensitivity at the level of order $3~\mu$V/m/MHz (see Appendix B).

958: 

959: Preliminary studies of simulated pulses applied to the

960: narrow-band front end suggest a considerably poorer achievable

961: signal-to-noise ratio, despite the expectation that the signal

962: should have a large portion of its energy between 23 and 37~MHz.

963: It appears difficult to detect a pulse from the antenna below

964: about 0.7~mV, which for a bandwidth of 14~MHz corresponds to a

965: threshold sensitivity of $7~\mu$V/m/MHz, not sufficient for our

966: purposes. Studies of possible improvements of the analysis

967: algorithm for the narrow-band data are continuing.

968: 

969: % This is Figure 6

970: \begin{figure}

971: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5 in \epsffile{nim6.eps}} \caption{Test

972: pulse of Fig.~4 after narrow-band filtration (25--35~MHz) and

973: preamplification.  Top panel: time dependence; bottom panel:

974: Fourier spectrum of recorded pulse for $-20~\mu {\rm s} \le t \le

975: 12.768~\mu$s.}

976: \end{figure}

977: 

978: \section{Results}

979: 

980: % This is Table 7

981: \begin{table}

982: \caption{Triggers associated with CASA operation taken under

983: various conditions.}

984: \begin{center}

985: \begin{tabular}{l r r r} \hline

986: Front end   & Macintosh         & Dell & Total \\ \hline

987: Narrow-band &  5849 (139.78 h) & 1952 (48.97 h) & 7801 (188.75 h) \\

988: Broad-band  &  9603 (272.57 h) & 5416 (121.62 h) & 15019 (394.18 h) \\

989: Low-frequency &    0            & 505  (17.67 h) & 505 (17.67 h) \\ \hline

990: Total       & 15452 (412.35 h) & 7873 (188.25 h) & 23325 (600.6 h) \\

991: \end{tabular}

992: \end{center}

993: \end{table}

994: 

995: % This is Table 8

996: \begin{table}

997: \caption{Broad-band data recorded on Macintosh Quadra.}

998: \begin{center}

999: \begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline

1000: Antenna      & CASA           &  CASA            & Partial & Total  \\

1001: Polarization & HV on          & HV off           & CASA HV & events \\ \hline

1002: East-West    & 4966 (119.03 h) & 859 (21.88 h) & 1957 (53.08 h) & 7782 

1003: (194.0 h)  \\

1004: North-South  & 696 (30.53 h)   & 582 (23.25 h) & 543 (24.78 h) & 1821 

1005: (78.57 h) \\ \hline 

1006: Total events & 5662 (149.57 h) & 1441 (45.14 h) & 2500 (77.87 h)

1007:          &  9603 (272.57 h)  \\ \hline

1008: \end{tabular}

1009: \end{center}

1010: \end{table} 

1011: 

1012: \subsection{Event sample}

1013: 

1014: More than 20000 triggers, obtained under various conditions of

1015: filtering, preamplification, 

1016: and noise reduction during the period February 1997 -- March 1998,

1017: are summarized in Table 7.  Events recorded on a Macintosh

1018: Quadra 950 and those recorded on a Dell LM Latitude laptop

1019: computer are listed separately because the power supply of the

1020: latter introduced spurious transients.  Our initial analysis concentrated on 

1021: data taken with

1022: the Macintosh.  For reasons mentioned above, we consider only the

1023: broad-band data at this time.  Thus, our usable sample consists of

1024: over 9000 CASA triggers.  In addition, periodic forced

1025: triggers were taken to monitor noise activity not associated with

1026: CASA operation.

1027: 

1028: The broad-band data recorded on the Macintosh Quadra, summarized in Table~8,

1029: are subdivided into several categories.  Data were taken with both

1030: East-West (EW) and North-South (NS) antenna polarizations. Moreover, since

1031: noise from CASA boxes was found to be a significant source of RF

1032: transients, data were taken with some or all CASA boxes disabled

1033: by turning off the high voltage (HV) supply to the photomultipliers. 

1034: Even when HV is supplied only to boxes that are further than 100~m from the 

1035: antenna, the RF transients from these boxes provide a strong background.  (See 

1036: the discussion in Sec.~\ref{s:Char} and Fig.~10 below.)

1037: One is unlikely to distinguish the RF pulses of the showers from this 

1038: noise. Therefore, we concentrated on data with CASA HV off,

1039: with 859 triggers taken with EW antenna polarization (21.88 active hours) 

1040: and 582 triggers taken with NS antenna polarization (23.25 active hours). 

1041: For subsequent sensitivity calculations, a subset of data was

1042: used consisting of 756 EW triggers (17.25 hours) and 528 NS triggers

1043: (21.12 hours). The remaining data with CASA HV off occurred in very

1044: short runs (52 EW triggers and 19 NS triggers) or was contaminated

1045: by local VHF communication signals (51 EW triggers and 35 NS triggers).

1046: Data with CASA HV on or partially disabled were not used for the

1047: present analysis.

1048: 

1049: % This is Figure 7

1050: \begin{figure}

1051: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5 in \epsffile{nim7.eps}} \caption{Top

1052: panel:  intensity-vs.-time plot for maxima of 880~pulses recorded in 

1053: 698~triggers in January 1998 with CASA HV supplied to all stations.

1054: Bottom panel: time distribution of transients.

1055: All events recorded with East-West antenna polarization.}

1056: \end{figure}

1057: 

1058: \subsection{Characterization of transients associated with CASA operation}

1059: \label{s:Char}

1060: 

1061: Several means were used to characterize transients.  One method with good 

1062: time

1063: resolution involved the shrinkage of large Fourier coefficients to a fixed

1064: maximum intensity, as in Figs.~2 and 3.  Another, which we have used for

1065: results to be presented below, involves generation of a time-vs.-frequency

1066: intensity plot by Fourier-transforming 1024-ns subsets of the 50 $\mu$s data

1067: record, spaced by 100 ns steps.  Since the data are sampled at 1 ns 

1068: intervals,

1069: the frequency resolution of this method is thus about 1 MHz.  The intensity

1070: $S(\nu,t)$ is then averaged over time $t$ for each frequency $\nu$ to form

1071: an average intensity $\bar S(\nu)$.  The quantity $S(\nu,t)/\bar S(\nu)$ is

1072: an estimate of the degree to which the intensity at a given frequency $\nu$

1073: and time $t$ exceeds the average over the $50~\mu$s sampling time.  We then

1074: average $S(\nu,t)/\bar S(\nu)$ over $\nu$ to search for events in which the

1075: average intensity at a given time is exceeded in many simultaneous frequency

1076: bands.

1077: 

1078: % This is Figure 8

1079: \begin{figure}

1080: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5.5 in \epsffile{nim8.eps}} \caption{Top

1081: panel:  intensity-vs.-time plot for maxima of 824 pulses in 691 

1082: triggers recorded

1083: in January 1998 with CASA HV disabled.

1084: Bottom panel:  time distribution of transients.

1085: All events recorded with East-West antenna polarization.}

1086: \end{figure}

1087: 

1088: One can then search for peaks of each data record 

1089: (there may be several peaks in a record), 

1090: plotting intensity of their maxima against time relative to the trigger. 

1091: One such plot is shown in Fig.~7 for a data run in which CASA HV was

1092: delivered to all boxes.  A strong accumulation of transients,

1093: mostly with intensity just above the arbitrarily chosen threshold (mean + 3

1094: $\sigma$ for each trigger sample), is visible at times $-5$ to $-7~\mu$s

1095: relative to the trigger.  In a comparable plot for a run in which CASA HV was

1096: completely disabled (Fig.~8), only a small accumulation at times $-6$ to

1097: $-7~\mu$s is present.  This excess appears due to transients with

1098: predominantly high-frequency components (over 100~MHz).  Since signal

1099: pulses are expected to have more power below 100~MHz (see Fig.~5, bottom)

1100: we believe that this accumulation is not due to shower radiation, but

1101: most likely arises from the muon patches, one of which is within

1102: 75~m of the antenna.

1103: 

1104: % This is Figure 9

1105: \begin{figure}

1106: % \vspace{5in}

1107: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5 in \epsffile{nim9.eps}}

1108: \caption{Signal of a typical transient associated with CASA

1109: operation.  Top panel:  before denoising; bottom panel:  after

1110: denoising.}

1111: \end{figure}

1112: 

1113: A typical transient occurring in a run with CASA HV on is shown in Fig.~9.  

1114: The transients are highly suppressed (though not in all runs) when

1115: CASA boxes within 100~m of the antenna are disabled, as shown in

1116: Fig.~10.

1117: 

1118: The time distribution of pulse maxima above an arbitrary

1119: threshold for 880 pulses detected with CASA HV on (one run

1120: from January 1998 composed of 698 files of data) is shown in 

1121: the bottom panel of Fig.~7.  The

1122: mean arrival time is about $6~\mu$s before the trigger, with a

1123: distribution which is slightly broader for pulses arriving

1124: earlier than the mean.  This broadening may correspond to some

1125: jitter in forming the trigger pulse from the sum of muon patch

1126: pulses.

1127: 

1128: As mentioned earlier, the time for the trigger pulse to propagate

1129: from the central station to the RF trailer was measured to be

1130: $2.15~\mu$s.  One expects a similar or slightly greater

1131: travel time for pulses to

1132: arrive from muon patches to the central station (see Fig.~1).

1133: Moreover, the muon patch signals are subjected to delays so that

1134: they all arrive at the central station at the same time for a

1135: vertically incident shower.  Thus, the peak in Fig.~7 is

1136: consistent with being associated with the initial detection of a

1137: shower by CASA boxes.  This circumstance was checked by recording

1138: CASA trigger request signals simultaneously with other data; they

1139: coincide with transients such as those illustrated in Fig.~9

1140: within better than $1/2~\mu$s.

1141: 

1142: % This is Figure 10

1143: \begin{figure}

1144: \centerline{\epsfysize = 4.5 in \epsffile{nim10.eps}} \caption{Top

1145: panel: intensity-vs.-time plot for maxima of 903 pulses recorded in

1146: 620 triggers in January 1998 with CASA HV disabled for boxes within 100 m of

1147: antenna.  Bottom panel:  time distribution of transients.  All events

1148: recorded with East-West antenna polarization.}

1149: \end{figure}

1150: 

1151: The RF signals from the shower are expected to arrive

1152: no later than, or at most several hundred nanoseconds before, the

1153: transients associated with CASA operation.  They would propagate

1154: directly from the shower to the antenna, whereas transients from

1155: CASA stations are associated with a longer total path

1156: length from the shower via the CASA station to the antenna. There

1157: will also be some small delay at a CASA station in forming the

1158: trigger request pulse.  Thus, we expect a genuine signal also to

1159: show up around 6--7 $\mu$s before the trigger. 

1160: 

1161: The time coincidence of the CASA RF transients and the shower signals is a 

1162: significant obstacle to detecting genuine pulses. Therefore, data with CASA HV

1163: on or partially disabled were not used for the present analysis.

1164: As we show below in Secs.~5.3.1--5.3.3, no significant peak is visible

1165: around 6--7 $\mu$s before the trigger for data recorded with CASA HV off. 

1166: The upper limit on the rate of events giving rise to such a peak

1167: can be used to set a limit on RF pulses associated with air showers,

1168: as we demonstrate in Sec.~5.3.4.

1169: 

1170: \subsection{Estimated upper bounds on broad-band signals}

1171: 

1172: As mentioned in Sec.~5.1, the following discussion is based on 17.25 active 

1173: hours of data accumulation with EW antenna polarization and 21.12 hours with 

1174: NS antenna polarization. The small duration of this subset of data

1175: limits its sensitivity to RF signals from the shower.

1176: 

1177: \subsubsection{Criteria used to distinguish noise and signal transients}

1178: 

1179: The main difficulty associated with pulse detection is that

1180: signal pulses are not easily distinguishable from large spurious

1181: pulses originating from atmospheric discharges. Both air shower

1182: pulses and these background noise pulses can considerably exceed

1183: the average noise level. Several criteria can be used to

1184: distinguish signal pulses from noise. The conventional criteria

1185: of the previous studies have been that the pulse should be (1)

1186: larger than the average noise level by some small specified

1187: amount, (2) time coincident with shower particles, and (3)

1188: bandwidth limited \cite{Allan}. All these criteria were adopted

1189: in this study and one more has been added: The pulse should have

1190: approximately uniform distribution over frequency within its

1191: limited bandwidth [see~(c) below].

1192: 

1193: We now note the particular criteria used to distinguish signal pulses in this

1194: study.

1195: 

1196: % This is Figure 11

1197: \begin{figure}[t]

1198: \label{2d plot}

1199: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5 in \epsffile{nim11.eps}}

1200: \caption{Simulated pulse (horizontal band at $0~\mu s$) and noise

1201: transient (horizontal band at about $15~\mu s$) on a 2-d plot of

1202: intensity (grayscale) vs.\ time (vertical axis) and frequency

1203: (horizontal axis).  Unlike the simulated pulse, the noise

1204: transient contains high frequency components. Grayscale: black

1205: color denotes the highest intensities, white the lowest.

1206: Vertical bands indicate continuous RF sources in the 54--200~MHz range.}

1207: \end{figure}

1208: 

1209: (a) {\it Pulse magnitude}

1210: 

1211: Continuous RF interference in each frequency channel was removed by advancing

1212: a moving 1024-ns window in 100~ns steps through the data record to produce a

1213: time-vs.-frequency plot [Sec.~\ref{ss:tfa}] and then using the averaging 

1214: procedure described in Sec.~5.2.

1215: Defining the average signal as 1 (in arbitrary units),

1216: the pulse threshold in each event was taken to be the larger of either

1217: (a) the mean plus three standard deviations, or (b) 1.8 (in the same

1218: units). The former permitted removal of an average noise level; the

1219: latter discriminated against small noise transients.  The final result

1220: was not affected by the choice of the factor 1.8 since the subsequent

1221: analysis [Sec.~\ref{thresh}] used a considerably higher threshold.

1222: 

1223: (b) {\it Limited bandwidth of pulses}

1224: 

1225: Broad-band filtering limits the frequency range to 23--250~MHz

1226: [Sec.~\ref{ss:filt}].  The investigation of the simulated

1227: pulses on a 2d-plot of intensity vs.\ time and frequency suggested that, 

1228: unlike some strong noise transients, the signal pulse intensity declines

1229: drastically in the range above approximately 100~MHz (Fig.~11).  This feature

1230: is consistent with theoretical predictions for the shower pulse

1231: spectrum~\cite{SRG}.  It can be chosen as a criterion for

1232: separating noise and signal transients. The ratio of mean intensities

1233: averaged over 23--100~MHz relative to that averaged over 100--250~MHz 

1234: was found to be greater than 1 for all simulated pulses and

1235: smaller than 1 for some noise pulses.

1236: 

1237: One can consider intensities averaged over the part of the whole 

1238: frequency range. To facilitate separation of signal transients

1239: it is preferable to choose a region where the signal-to-noise

1240: ratio is particularly large. Unfortunately, the whole region from

1241: 23~MHz to 100~MHz cannot be effectively used for this purpose.

1242: The 54--82~MHz range is occupied by TV channels 2, 4 and 5, 

1243: which leads to high noise levels. The same is true for the whole FM band

1244: (88--108~MHz) [Sec.~\ref{ss:TVFM}].  However, this is not the case

1245: in the 24--54~MHz range. The noise level in this range is mostly

1246: uniform, and simulated pulse intensities are particularly large

1247: there in comparison with the noise level. The assumption that the

1248: 24--54~MHz range provides the best signal-to-noise intensity

1249: ratio has been tested. The results for this range have been

1250: compared with the ones obtained in the 10--54~MHz and 24--86~MHz

1251: regions and were found to be superior. Subsequently, the range of

1252: 24--54~MHz was chosen as the main region of investigation.

1253: 

1254: After that, it was natural to choose the ratio of mean intensities averaged 

1255: over 24--54~MHz relative to that averaged over 55--250~MHz at the moment of

1256: each pulse as a criterion for discriminating noise and signal pulses. For all

1257: simulated pulses this ratio was greater than 1.  All pulses for

1258: which this ratio was smaller than 1 were assumed to be noise

1259: transients and discarded. Also, a ratio parameter threshold other

1260: than 1 can be chosen.  The parameters that provided best results

1261: were found to lie between 1.4 and 1.8 [Section~\ref{res}]. 

1262: 

1263: (c) {\it Approximately uniform distribution of pulse intensity

1264: over frequency in the 24--54~MHz range}

1265: 

1266: The most intense noise transients that met criteria (a) and

1267: (b) were found to display a peculiar feature:

1268: Their intensities were concentrated in a small region of

1269: approximately 10~MHz width somewhere in the 24--54~MHz range.

1270: This non-uniformity allowed such pulses to be ruled out. If the

1271: pulse intensity, integrated over {\it any} 9~MHz width window

1272: (in the 24--54~MHz range), was greater than the intensity

1273: integrated over the remaining 21~MHz, then such a non-uniform

1274: pulse was discarded as a noise transient. The reason for choosing

1275: a 9~MHz width window was that most simulated pulses 

1276: passed this test, while many noise transients 

1277: did not.

1278: 

1279: The effectiveness of these three criteria is illustrated in Table~\ref{pass}.

1280: For simulated pulses that are stronger than 3.43~$\mu$V/m/MHz the combination

1281: of criteria (b), (c) and a very high intensity

1282: threshold provides a $84.1/4.75\approx18$ times increase for their relative 

1283: fraction with respect to noise transients.

1284: 

1285: %This is Table 9

1286: \begin{table}[t]

1287: \caption{Fraction of noise pulses passing criterion (a) that can also

1288: pass criteria (c) and (b) with ratio parameter threshold of 1.4, and whose 

1289: maximum intensities are larger than some very high intensity threshold.

1290: Fraction of simulated pulses of different strengths (in $\mu$V/m/MHz), that can

1291: pass criteria (c) and (b) with ratio parameter threshold of 1.4, and whose 

1292: maximum intensities (after they are superimposed on noise) are larger than 

1293: the same high intensity threshold.

1294: The strengths of the pulses are chosen to be stronger than $1/n$ times an

1295: original test pulse amplitude of 13.7~$\mu$V/m/MHz, $n=2,3,4,\ldots,7$.} 

1296: \label{pass}

1297: \begin{center}

1298: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1299: \hline 

1300: {} & {} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Simulated pulses that are stronger than}

1301:  \\ \cline{3-8}

1302: {} & Noise pulses &6.85&4.57&3.43&2.74&2.28&1.96\\ \cline{3-8}

1303: {} & {} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{$\mu$V/m/MHz}\\

1304: \hline \hline

1305: North-South & 4.47\% & 94.1\% & 91.7\% & 85.2\% & 66.9\% & 47.7\% & 36.7\%\\

1306: \hline

1307: East-West & 4.75\% & 98.8\% & 93.4\% & 84.1\% & 67.7\% & 48.7\% & 41.4\%\\

1308: \hline

1309: \end{tabular}

1310: \end{center}

1311: \end{table}

1312: 

1313: 

1314: \subsubsection{Method outline}

1315: 

1316: The time coincidence of the pulse with air shower  particles

1317: implies that a signal pulse should be looked for in the range

1318: between $-7$ and $-6~\mu s$ [Sec.~\ref{s:Char}], which will be

1319: referred to in what follows as ``the interesting time bin''. It is important

1320: to note that the aforementioned test criteria are not efficient

1321: if applied only to the pulses found in this time bin. Indeed,

1322: some noise pulses in the bin meet all criteria. Hence, accepting

1323: all the pulses that pass this test would not guarantee that

1324: signal pulses are present among them at all. We developed a

1325: different approach.

1326: 

1327: The time distribution of noise pulses is assumed  to be uniform.

1328: Hence, the following technique can be adopted. First, the time

1329: distribution histogram of the pulse maxima (from the whole data

1330: run) can be plotted. Then, in the absence of signal pulses, the

1331: number of pulses in a time bin should obey a Poisson distribution

1332: with the average being equal to the average pulse number per bin.

1333: Suppose that an accumulation of pulses in the interesting

1334: time bin $(-7,-6)~\mu s$ is large enough that its probability

1335: according to the Poisson distribution is less than 5\%. Then this

1336: signifies the presence of signal pulses with a confidence level

1337: of 95\%.

1338: 

1339: Thus, a sufficiently large relative accumulation  of entries in

1340: the interesting time bin was adopted as a key criterion in search

1341: of signal pulses.

1342: 

1343: \subsubsection{Detailed description}

1344: \label{thresh}

1345: 

1346: % This is Figure 12

1347: \begin{figure}

1348: \label{fig:17}

1349: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5 in \epsffile{nim12.eps}}

1350: \caption{Intensity vs.\ time plot for maxima of transients in 756

1351: files of data with East-West antenna polarization and CASA HV off.

1352: The horizontal line denotes the

1353: threshold taken to lie at the level of the 17th strongest pulse.

1354: Only criterion (a) of Sec.~5.3.1 was employed, resulting in a large (1367)

1355: number of entries.}

1356: \end{figure}

1357: 

1358: A routine was designed to scan all events in the whole data run

1359: and select the  transients that passed criterion (a) in Sec.~5.3.1.

1360: The ratio parameter (see above) and uniformity parameter [1, if

1361: criterion (c) was satisfied, and 0, if not] were recorded along with time

1362: relative to the trigger and intensity of a transient. The intensity

1363:  vs.\ time plot of pulse maxima selected in this manner for the data

1364: taken with East-West antenna polarization is shown in Fig.~12.

1365: 

1366: In order to be detectable, signal pulses should be stronger than

1367: the average noise transient, whose intensity equals 2.5 as a result

1368: of the specific criteria imposed.  Hence,

1369: it is reasonable to set the intensity threshold sufficiently high

1370: to enhance the relative accumulation in the $(-7,-6)~\mu s$ time

1371: bin. One can set a high threshold and determine the number of

1372: pulses that pass through it. Divided by number of bins, this

1373: number gives the average pulse number per bin. This, in turn, can

1374: be used as an average value of the Poisson distribution to

1375: determine whether the probability of the observed accumulation in

1376: the interesting bin is less than 5\%.

1377: 

1378: The effectiveness of this technique depends on the choice of

1379: intensity threshold.  If the threshold is too low, the histogram

1380: includes many noise pulses. Then, the signal pulse accumulation

1381: in the interesting time bin becomes relatively small to be

1382: distinguished from statistical fluctuations. If the threshold is

1383: too high, it may cut out some signal pulses and the remaining

1384: ones may not make up a significant accumulation. The choice of

1385: the optimum threshold is discussed below.

1386: 

1387: \subparagraph{Optimum intensity threshold.}

1388: 

1389: Suppose we look for an accumulation of 2 or more entries. Such

1390: an accumulation  is significant (i.e.\ its probability is

1391: $\le5\%$) if the average number of pulses per bin is about 0.355.

1392: Indeed, according to Poisson distribution, $P(\mbox{0

1393: entries})=\exp(-0.355)\approx0.701$, $P(\mbox{1

1394: entry})=0.355\cdot\exp(-0.355) \approx0.249$, so $P(\mbox{$\ge2$

1395: entries})=1-0.701-0.249=0.05$. Since the standard histogram used in

1396: the study contained 48~bins (of 1~$\mu s$ each), the average

1397: value of 0.355 pulses per bin would correspond to a total number

1398: of $0.355\cdot48\approx17$ pulses. These considerations suggest

1399: that the intensity threshold would not have some fixed value but

1400: would correspond to the intensity of the 17th strongest pulse

1401: [see Fig.~12]. Then, the total number of entries in the histogram

1402: is 17 and the average number of entries per bin is about~0.355.

1403: So, 2 or more entries in the interesting bin, if observed, would

1404: have the probability of~5\% and would reveal the presence of

1405: signal pulses with 95\%~CL.

1406: 

1407: %This is Table 10

1408: \begin{table}[t]

1409: \caption{Significant accumulation of entries in the interesting

1410: time bin and the corresponding optimum threshold (calculated

1411: according to Poisson distribution).} \label{accum}

1412: \begin{center}

1413: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}

1414: \hline 

1415: \multicolumn{1}{|p{4.5cm}|}{Number of entries in the interesting time 

1416: bin one is looking for}

1417: & \multicolumn{1}{|p{4.5cm}|}

1418: {Average number of entries per

1419: bin at which the probability of this accumulation becomes

1420: $\le5\%$} & \multicolumn{1}{|p{4.5cm}|}{Corresponding

1421: total number of entries in the 48 bin histogram (optimum threshold) }  \\ 

1422: \hline \hline

1423: 2&0.355&17\\ 

1424: 3&0.817&39\\

1425: 4&1.366&65\\

1426: 5&1.970&94\\

1427: 6&2.613&125\\

1428: 7&3.285&157\\

1429: 8&3.980&191\\

1430: 9&4.695&225\\

1431: 10&5.425&260\\

1432: 11&6.170&296\\

1433: 12&6.924&332\\

1434: 13&7.690&369\\

1435: 14&8.464&406\\

1436: 15&9.245&443\\

1437: 16&10.035&481\\

1438: 17&10.832&519\\

1439: 18&11.635&558\\

1440: 19&12.443&597\\

1441: 20&13.256&636\\

1442: \hline

1443: \end{tabular}

1444: \end{center}

1445: \end{table}

1446: 

1447: Naturally, the probability of 3 or more entries would be even

1448: smaller and approximately equal to $P(\mbox{$\ge3$

1449: entries})=P(\mbox{$\ge2$ entries})-P(\mbox{2

1450: entries})=0.05-\frac{0.355^2}{2!}\exp(-0.355) \\ \approx0.006$. That is,

1451: if such an accumulation were observed, the presence of signal

1452: pulses could be claimed with a confidence level of 99.4\%. However,

1453: in reality it is unlikely that signal pulses could be detected

1454: with such a confidence level. To improve the detection chances,

1455: it is advantageous to lower the threshold to the 39th strongest

1456: pulse. This sets the average number of entries per bin to

1457: $39/48\approx0.813$ and makes the probability of 3 entries equal

1458: to~5\%. The threshold of the 39th strongest pulse is the lowest

1459: one that still guarantees a confidence level of at least 95\%.

1460: 

1461: Thus, the convenient threshold depends on the significant

1462: accumulation number one is looking for. For any particular

1463: accumulation, one can choose the optimum threshold which would

1464: guarantee a confidence level of at least 95\%. The significant

1465: accumulation number and the corresponding optimum threshold can

1466: be found in Table~\ref{accum}.

1467: 

1468: \subparagraph{}

1469: 

1470: This method did not reveal any significant accumulation in the

1471: interesting time bin. So far, however, only criterion (a) and

1472: intensity thresholds were applied to detected pulses. As was

1473: already mentioned in the beginning of this Section, the ratio and

1474: uniformity parameters were recorded for each simulated or noise

1475: pulse. This made it easy to impose criterion (b) with different

1476: ratio parameter thresholds and criterion (c). Their application

1477: should have increased the ratio of signal pulse number to noise

1478: pulse number. Unfortunately, no significant accumulation has been

1479: detected (see Fig.~13). This means that signal pulses are quite

1480: rare, so that the resulting accumulation is not significant.

1481: However, upper limits can be placed on the rate (in h$^{-1}$) of

1482: signal pulses that are stronger than some fixed value. This will

1483: be our aim for the next subsection.

1484: 

1485: 

1486: % This is Figure 13

1487: \begin{figure}[t]

1488: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{nim13.eps}} \caption{

1489: Time distribution histogram for maxima of the 65 strongest pulses  

1490: extracted from 756 files of the EW data with (a), (b) and (c) imposed.

1491: The ratio parameter threshold for criterion (b) is 1.4.

1492: An accumulation of 4 or more pulses in the (--7,--6) $\mu$s

1493: bin would signify the presence of signal pulses. Such an

1494: accumulation was not detected.}

1495: \end{figure}

1496: 

1497: \subsubsection{Upper limits on the rate}

1498: \label{res}

1499: 

1500: The total number $n$ of observed transients in the interesting time bin

1501: consists of both noise and signal events. The former are Poisson-distributed 

1502: with known average $\mu$. The latter obey a binomial distribution with a 

1503: known probability $P$ to pass thresholds and an unknown total number $N$ of 

1504: signal events contained in the run. Using a unified approach to the 

1505: statistical analysis of small signals~\cite{FC}, we construct 95\% confidence

1506: belts for unknown $N$. For any choice of imposed thresholds, the lower end of

1507: confidence intervals is 0, i.e.\ only upper limit on the total number of 

1508: signals in the run can be placed.

1509: 

1510: \subparagraph{Probability $P_s(k)$ that the interesting bin contains $k$ 

1511: signal events.}

1512: 

1513: Formula (1) [Section 3] shows that ${\cal E}_\nu$ is directly proportional to

1514: primary energy $E_p$.  The differential rate of primaries is known to fall

1515: approximately as $1/E_p^3$ \cite{REF}.  Similarly, the differential rate of

1516: ${\cal E}_\nu$'s should be proportional to $1/{\cal E}_\nu^3$.

1517: 

1518: Simulated pulses of different strength ${\cal E}_\nu$ greater

1519: than some ${\cal E}_\nu^0$ can be added to each event of the data

1520: run.  To simulate the expected rate for ${\cal

1521: E}_\nu$, a Monte-Carlo simulation was performed in such a way that

1522: the number of added simulated pulses with strength ${\cal E}_\nu$

1523: falls as $1/{\cal E}_\nu^3$. 

1524: 

1525: Each event underwent the averaging procedure described in Sec.~5.2. 

1526: The averaged intensities of simulated pulses were compared to the values of

1527: the 17th (or 39th, 65th, etc.) strongest noise pulse of the

1528: initial data (without added simulated pulses). The fraction of

1529: simulated signal pulses that were higher than this threshold gives the

1530: probability $P$ for a signal pulse with strength greater than

1531: some ${\cal E}_\nu^0$ to exceed this threshold. We determined the value of 

1532: $P$ as a function of ${\cal E}_\nu^0$, the intensity threshold, and the set 

1533: of 

1534: criteria ((a), (b),(c), or some combination of them) imposed on both noise 

1535: and signal pulses. Then, these values were used to make an analytical 

1536: estimate of the probability to detect a significant accumulation

1537: number of entries in the interesting bin.

1538: 

1539: By making an assumption for the total number of signal pulses $N$

1540: during the run and using the binomial distribution, one can

1541: calculate the probability that $k$ out of these $N$ signal pulses exceed

1542: the threshold: $P_s(k)=C(N,k)\,P^k\,(1-P)^{N-k}$, where

1543: $C(N,k)$ is the standard binomial coefficient. This

1544: probability not only depends on ${\cal E}_\nu^0$, the intensity threshold, and 

1545: the set of imposed criteria but also on the aforementioned assumption for

1546: the number $N$. 

1547: 

1548: \subparagraph{Determining upper limits $N^{up}$.}

1549: 

1550: Suppose, for instance, that we are looking for 3 or more

1551: significant entries in a bin. 

1552: 

1553: First, we impose a particular set of criteria on all pulses in the run,

1554: pick the 39 strongest of them and determine the number $n$ of entries in the 

1555: interesting bin. 39 pulses in the histogram correspond to an average

1556: $\mu=39/48\approx0.813$ entries per bin. The Poisson

1557: distribution $P_n(k)=\mu^k e^{-\mu}/k!$ determines the probability to have 

1558: $k$ pulses in a bin.

1559: 

1560: Second, we set the intensity threshold at the level

1561: of the 39th pulse. Then we determine $P_s(k)$ for the same set of imposed 

1562: criteria, this intensity threshold and any total number $N$ of signal 

1563: transients in the run.

1564: 

1565: Consider the construction of an acceptance interval of $n$ values for some 

1566: fixed total number $N$ of signal transients in the run. $n$ entries in the 

1567: interesting bin can be the result of different combinations of noise and 

1568: signal entries. We calculate the 

1569: probability to detect $n$ entries in the bin as 

1570: $$

1571: P(n|N)=\sum_{k=0}^n{P_s(k)P_n(n-k)}=e^{-\mu} 

1572: \sum_{k=0}^n{C(N,k)\,P^k\,(1-P)^{N-k}}\mu^{n-k}/(n-k)!

1573: $$

1574: Take some values of $n$ and $N$, for example, $n=n_0$ and $N=N_0$. The 

1575: probability $P(n_0|N_0)$ might be small but not so small with respect to 

1576: $P(n_0|N_{best})$, where $N_{best}$ is such an alternate hypothesis which 

1577: maximizes $P(n_0|N)$. The ratio $R=P(n_0|N_0)/P(n_0|N_{best})$ is the basis

1578: of the ordering principle outlined in~\cite{FC}.

1579: 

1580: For any $N$ we add values of $n$ into the acceptance interval in decreasing 

1581: order of $R$. As soon as the sum of $P(n|N)$ exceeds the confidence level of 

1582: 0.95, the acceptance interval is completed. The confidence belts that can be 

1583: constructed using this procedure are shown in Fig.~14. For any observed 

1584: number $n$ of entries in the interesting bin, these belts provide 

1585: intervals for allowed values of $N$. For any choice of imposed criteria and 

1586: for all values of $n$ measured in the experiment, the lower end of the 

1587: intervals was 0. Thus, the actual signal transients were not detected and only the upper limit $N^{up}$ on their number during the run 

1588: can be placed.

1589: 

1590: % This is Figure 14

1591: \begin{figure}[t]

1592: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{nim14.eps}}

1593: \caption{Confidence belt based on ordering principle of reference~\cite{FC}, 

1594: for 95\% CL intervals for unknown total number $N$ of signal pulses in the 

1595: run. The probability $P=0.841$ for a signal pulse to go through a set of  

1596: cuts, and the Poisson background mean $\mu=65/48=1.354$, are the parameters 

1597: of the plot. The presence of $n\ge4$ entries in the interesting time bin 

1598: from the total of 65 entries in the histogram would signify the presence 

1599: of signal pulses in the run [see Table~10]. 

1600: This is also reflected in this Figure as for $n\ge4$ $N^{low}$ becomes 

1601: nonzero.

1602: $P=0.841$ corresponds

1603: to the probability for signal pulses stronger than 1/4 the original test pulse

1604: amplitude to pass criteria (b), (c),

1605: and an intensity threshold at the level of the 65th strongest pulse of 

1606: the EW data [see Table~9]. The ratio parameter threshold for criterion (b) is 1.4.

1607: Only one of the 65 strongest pulses was observed in the interesting time bin

1608: [see Fig.~13],

1609: implying the upper limit $N^{up}=2$ 

1610: (see also the corresponding dot in 

1611: Fig.~15(b) at ${\cal E}_\nu^0=3.43~\mu$V/m/MHz).}

1612: \end{figure}

1613: 

1614: \subparagraph{Upper limit $R^{up}({\cal E}_\nu>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$.}

1615: 

1616: Divided by the total run time (17.245~hours 

1617: with EW antenna polarization and 21.116~hours with NS polarization), $N^{up}$

1618: gives the upper limit on the rate of signal pulses of 

1619: strength greater than ${\cal E}_\nu^0$. We will denote it

1620: $R^{up}({\cal E}_\nu>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$. Of course, one can obtain

1621: different values of $R^{up}({\cal E}_\nu>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$ when looking for

1622: a different significant number of entries in the interesting bin. We searched

1623: for the accumulation values from 2 to 20 in the bin $(-7,-6)~\mu s$.

1624: The lowest $R^{up}({\cal E}_\nu>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$ gives the most

1625: stringent upper limit on the rate. Its value  also depends on criteria 

1626: imposed on both signal and noise pulses. The best results were achieved when

1627: all three criteria (a), (b) and (c) were employed. 

1628: The ratio threshold parameter for criterion (b) was tested in the region from

1629: 1 to 2.4 with step 0.2. The thresholds that give the best results were found 

1630: to be 1.4 for EW and both 1.6 and 1.8 for NS data. Compared to the analysis 

1631: with neither (b) nor (c) employed,  these threshold parameters provide up to

1632: 28\% lower upper limits. The resulting values of $R^{up}({\cal E}_\nu>{\cal 

1633: E}_\nu^0)$ are shown as dots in Fig.~15 for several values of ${\cal 

1634: E}_\nu^0$ for the data taken with both East-West and North-South 

1635: polarizations. Signal pulses stronger than 4.57~$\mu$V/m/MHz are expected to 

1636: be quite rare and were definitely absent from the NS data, just like pulses 

1637: stronger than 6.85~$\mu$V/m/MHz were absent from the EW data. Zero upper 

1638: limits on the rates of these events are indicators of these facts.

1639: 

1640: % This is Figure 15

1641: \begin{figure}

1642: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{nim15.eps}}

1643: \caption{Upper limit $R^{up}({\cal E}_\nu>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$ on the

1644: rate of signal pulses stronger than a fixed strength ${\cal E}_\nu^0$.  

1645: Plotted dots show the upper limit for antenna

1646: system gain $G=1.8$. Small numbers near the dots indicate $N^{up}$,

1647: the upper limit on the number of the signal events in the run.

1648: The dots were plotted for the pulses that are stronger than $1/n$ times the 

1649: original test pulse amplitude of 13.7~$\mu$V/m/MHz, $n=2,3,\ldots,7$. 

1650: The solid line represents the lowest upper limit corresponding to them.  Data

1651: were taken with (a) North-South (21.12~hours) and (b) East-West (17.25~hours)

1652: antenna polarization.}  

1653: \end{figure}

1654: 

1655: As was mentioned above, the differential rate $R({\cal E}_\nu)$ should be

1656: proportional to $1/{\cal E}_\nu^3$. Then, the rate of signal

1657: pulses of the strength greater than ${\cal E}_\nu^0$ is $$

1658: R({\cal E}_\nu>{\cal E}_\nu^0)=\int\limits_{{\cal

1659: E}_\nu^0}^{+\infty} R({\cal E}_\nu)\,d{\cal

1660: E}_\nu\propto\int\limits_{{\cal E}_\nu^0}^{+\infty}

1661: \frac{1}{{\cal E}_\nu^3}\,d{\cal E}_\nu\propto

1662: \frac{1}{({\cal E}_\nu^0)^2} $$ i.e., proportional to $1/({\cal E}_\nu^0)^2$.

1663: Hence, the lowest curve $c/({\cal E}_\nu^0)^2$ passing through one of the

1664: nonzero dots (solid line in Fig.~15) represents the strictest upper limit on

1665: this rate.  The value of the coefficient $c$ was found to be 0.555 for the NS

1666: data and 0.889 for the EW data:

1667: \beq

1668: R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu NS}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)=0.555/

1669: ({\cal E}_\nu^0)^2 \ \ {\rm h}^{-1},

1670: \label{eqn:uplimNS} 

1671: \eeq 

1672: \beq

1673: R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)=0.889/

1674: ({\cal E}_\nu^0)^2 \ \ {\rm h}^{-1},

1675: \label{eqn:uplimEW} 

1676: \eeq  

1677: where ${\cal E}_\nu^0$ is in $\mu$V/m/MHz.  These results should be interpreted

1678: as the upper limits on the rates of events where the North-South (or East-West)

1679: projection of the signal pulse was greater than some value. We

1680: will use them in Appendix A for sensitivity calculations.

1681: 

1682: \subsection{Discussion and summary}

1683: 

1684: The small duration of the present subset of data prevents us from confirming

1685: or refuting previous claims for shower pulses.  As mentioned, this subset was

1686: taken with CASA HV off, and was initially collected in order to check

1687: indications of a signal which occurred with CASA HV on.  Using the estimate of

1688: 2.25 strong signal pulses per day [Sec.~4.4.4], one expects about three or four

1689: detectable shower pulses during 38.36~hours of observation.

1690: Three or four detectable particles that might give a strong signal during

1691: the experiment would be too scanty an amount to be detected over the noise

1692: background, which closely mimics genuine signals. 

1693: 

1694: % This is Figure 16

1695: \begin{figure}

1696: \centerline{\epsfysize = 6.55 in \epsffile{nim16.eps}} 

1697: \caption{Rate of events at the CASA detection area in which the East-West

1698: projection of the signal pulse is greater than some ${\cal E}_\nu^0$.  The

1699: lower three curves show the {\it predicted} rates based on different values of

1700: $s$:  $s = 20 \pm 9.5$ (dash-dotted line, the original Haverah Park result

1701: \cite{Allan} based on $\sim$100 detected shower pulses); $s = 9.2 \pm 1.4$

1702: (dashed line, the Soviet group result \cite{Atrash} based on $\sim$1000 

1703: pulses), and $s = 1.6 \pm 0.24$ (dotted line, the updated Haverah Park result

1704: \cite{Atrash} based on $\sim$1000 pulses).  The uncertainty in the latter two

1705: values is 15\%~\cite{Atrash}. We evaluated the uncertainty in the former as

1706: being $\sqrt{10} \cdot 15\% \approx 47\%$.  In this logarithmic plot the error

1707: bars have constant lengths along their corresponding curves.

1708: The top curve is the upper limit in this paper which corresponds 

1709: to $s=31$.  These four curves are determined under the assumption 

1710: of a transverse current radiation mechanism~\cite{KL}.}

1711: \end{figure}

1712: 

1713: % This is Figure 17

1714: \begin{figure}

1715: \centerline{\epsfysize = 6.55 in \epsffile{nim17.eps}} 

1716: \caption{Rate of events at the CASA detection area in which the North-South

1717: projection of the signal pulse is greater than some ${\cal E}_\nu^0$.  The

1718: lower three curves show the {\it predicted} rates based on different values of

1719: $s$:  $s=20\pm9.5$ (dash-dotted line, the original Haverah Park result

1720: \cite{Allan} based on $\sim$100 detected shower pulses); $s=9.2\pm1.4$

1721: (dashed line, the Soviet group result~\cite{Atrash} based on $\sim$1000 

1722: pulses), and $s=1.6\pm0.24$ (dotted line, the updated Haverah Park 

1723: result~\cite{Atrash} based on $\sim$1000

1724: pulses). The uncertainty in the latter two values is 15\%~\cite{Atrash}. We 

1725: evaluated the uncertainty in the former as being $\sqrt{10}\cdot15\% \approx 

1726: 47\%$. In this logarithmic plot the error bars have constant lengths along 

1727: their corresponding curves.  The top curve is the upper limit in this paper

1728: which corresponds to $s=34$.  These four curves are determined under the

1729: assumption of a particular radiation mechanism discussed in Appendix~A.}

1730: \end{figure}

1731: 

1732: Nonetheless, we were able to place upper limits on the integral rate of 

1733: signal pulses. Under certain simplifying assumptions these upper limits can 

1734: be used for evaluating the numerical calibrating factor $s$. This factor was 

1735: set to 20 in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:E}) but there remained an uncertainty regarding 

1736: its value. In fact, subsequent reports claimed values as small as~1.6. 

1737: We could only set upper limits on $s$: $s<31$ from the EW and $s<34$ from the

1738: NS data [see Appendix~A]. The former was obtained under the assumption 

1739: of the transverse current radiation mechanism, the latter under an 

1740: alternative radiation mechanism discussed in Appendix~A.

1741: Figs.~16 and 17 compare our results with those of previous experiments.

1742: 

1743: Had additional observation time with CASA boxes disabled been available, more

1744: signal pulses and more noise transients would be recorded. Would it be easier

1745: to prove the presence of shower signals in the data? Taking into account that

1746: the average signal pulse from a high energy air shower is much stronger than 

1747: the average noise pulse, the content of the most intense transients (those 

1748: stronger than 17th strongest, 39th, etc.) would shift in favor of more signal

1749: pulses. Thus, additional running time with CASA HV off would have allowed one

1750: to at least place a stricter upper limit on the rate of shower pulses, if not

1751: to detect them. 

1752: 

1753: \section{Issues specific to a giant array}

1754: 

1755: \subsection{Frequency range}

1756: 

1757: The study of pulse components above 30~MHz remains a useful

1758: restriction in view of the changing RF environment encountered at

1759: lower frequencies.  During years of sunspot minima the whole

1760: range of frequencies above 23~MHz remained relatively clear of

1761: broadcast interference, while as the sunspot numbers increased

1762: toward the end of 1997, daytime interference became particularly

1763: intense from the citizen's band just above 27~MHz.  This

1764: interference typically subsided at sunset.  If observations

1765: below 30~MHz are contemplated, they would be most

1766: useful during years of expected sunspot minima (e.g., 2006-7), to

1767: minimize effects of long-distance ionospheric reflections.

1768: 

1769: \subsection{Number and spacing of receiving sites}

1770: 

1771: It is expected \cite{Allan} that signals above 30~MHz decrease

1772: rapidly as a function of distance between the antenna and the

1773: shower core's closest approach.  Thus, we expect that in the

1774: Auger array, with spacing of 1.5 km between sites in a hexagonal

1775: array, RF stations would have to be distributed with roughly the

1776: same or greater density.  One possibility for minimizing RF

1777: interference from Auger stations would be to place the RF station

1778: at the interstices between them.  This would raise the cost per

1779: station, since it would require microwave communication with

1780: Auger sites and auxiliary sources of power.

1781: 

1782: At each station it may be helpful to have two antennas, one

1783: registering pulses of east-west polarization and one for

1784: north-south polarization.  Differential signals as well as

1785: individual ones should be recorded.  Coincidences among several

1786: stations may be associated with particularly large showers.

1787: Frequency-dependent antenna phase response should be modeled or measured, as

1788: noted in Sec.\ 4.4.8.

1789: 

1790: \subsection{Digitization requirements}

1791: 

1792: Previous work by one of us (J.F.W.) involved detection of electromagnetic

1793: pulses, including those possibly produced by cosmic-ray-induced electromagnetic

1794: discharges, with frequencies in the 30 -- 100~MHz range.  Part of this work

1795: included building hardware for self-triggering on short duration wide-band RF

1796: pulses.  Many of the pulse identification, fast-digitization and memory

1797: problems were identical to those for pulse detection at CASA/MIA.

1798: Time-frequency plots were obtained similar to those one would generate in a

1799: survey at CASA/MIA.  Similar requirements also are encountered for digitization

1800: of data from the KamLAND Experiment \cite{KAM}.

1801: 

1802: Our experience with the present system indicates the need for

1803: expanded dynamic range if continuous-wave sources of RF

1804: interference (such as FM and TV broadcast stations) are to be

1805: eliminated digitally.  Thus, one needs at least 10-bit and

1806: probably 12-bit range, with a digitization rate of at least 

1807: 400~MHz so as to be sensitive to frequencies up to 200~MHz. 

1808: Although the expected signal is likely to be concentrated at lower

1809: frequencies (probably below 100~MHz), the expanded frequency

1810: range has proved useful in distinguishing expected signals from

1811: other transients.

1812: 

1813: \subsection{Stand-alone trigger}

1814: 

1815: Our results do not indicate that a trigger based on RF signals

1816: alone can yield useful correlations with air shower events.  This

1817: result may be specific to the location of the CASA/MIA array; such

1818: a trigger may be less subject to noise at a remote location such

1819: as the Southern Hemisphere Auger site.  An RF survey performed

1820: there would be useful in determining the utility of such a

1821: trigger.  At such a site, more free from man-made noise than the

1822: CASA/MIA site, one would have to perform further studies allowing

1823: discrimination between random triggers (such as those induced by

1824: atmospheric discharges) and those induced by air showers.  One

1825: would also attempt to detect galactic noise as a further

1826: indication that the site was sufficiently quiet.

1827: 

1828: \subsection{Integration into the data stream}

1829: 

1830: The data of CASA/MIA and that of the RF detection experiment were

1831: only integrated off-line.  Any further studies should allow for

1832: simultaneous acquisition of both sets of data.  Since the Auger

1833: project proposes to use microwave communication between stations,

1834: this same link should be considered for communicating RF signal

1835: acquisition results to a central data stream.

1836: 

1837: \subsection{Status of GHz detection}

1838: 

1839: David Wilkinson, who visited the University of Chicago during the

1840: spring of 1995, has proposed looking into the power radiated at

1841: frequencies of several GHz, where new opportunities exist

1842: associated with the availability of low-noise receivers.  These

1843: techniques have now been implemented in the RICE project

1844: \cite{RICE}, which seeks to detect pulses with frequency

1845: components around 250~MHz in Antarctic polar ice.

1846: 

1847: \subsection{Other options}

1848: 

1849: Dispersion between arrival times of GPS signals on two different

1850: frequencies may serve as a useful monitor of air shower

1851: activity.  The possibility of correlation of large showers with

1852: such dispersion events could be investigated.

1853: 

1854: It may be possible to monitor commercial broadcast signals in the

1855: 54 - 216~MHz range to detect momentary enhancements associated

1856: with large showers, in the same sense that meteor showers produce

1857: such enhancements.  Television channels for which no nearby

1858: stations exist offer one possibility.

1859: The data taken at CASA/MIA have not yet been analyzed in terms of such

1860: enhancements, but represent a potential source of information.

1861: In Table~\ref{TVstat} we note the locations of TV stations

1862: broadcasting on VHF channels {\it other} than those assigned to

1863: the Salt Lake City metropolitan area within 400~km of Dugway.

1864: These are channels 3 (60--66~MHz), 6 (82--88~MHz), 8 (180--186~MHz), 

1865: 10 (192-198~MHz), and 12 (204-210~MHz).  The availability

1866: of at least two stations on Channel 3 and three on Channel 6 at

1867: greatly differing headings indicates that this method may have

1868: some promise.

1869: 

1870: % This is Table 11

1871: \begin{table}

1872: \caption{Television stations within 400~km of Dugway on channels

1873: not assigned to the Salt Lake City metropolitan area.

1874: Ref.~\cite{TV} also lists four ``new'' (unidentified) stations on

1875: Channel 3 for Price, UT (distance $\simeq$ 160~km, heading

1876: $\simeq$ 110 degrees) and two on Channel 12 for Logan, UT

1877: (distance 178 km, heading 14 degrees).}

1878: \label{TVstat}

1879: \begin{center}

1880: \begin{tabular}{l c r r c c} \hline

1881: Call  &   Location      & Channel & Power & Distance from & Heading  \\

1882: sign  &                 &         & (kW) & Dugway (km)    &

1883: (degrees) \\ \hline

1884: KBJN  &    Ely, NV      &    3    & 100  &      212       &    239   \\

1885: KIDK  & Idaho Falls, ID &    3    & 100  &      363       &     1    \\

1886: KBNY  &    Ely, NV      &    6    & 100  &      212       &    239   \\

1887: KPVI  & Pocatello, ID   &    6    & 100  &      301       &     6    \\

1888: KBCJ  &   Vernal, UT    &    6    & 83.2 &      306       &     87   \\

1889: KIFI-TV & Idaho Falls, ID &  8    & 316  &      363       &     1    \\

1890: KENV  &    Elko, NV     &   10    & 3.09 &      272       &    280   \\

1891: KISU-TV & Pocatello, ID &   10    & 123  &      301       &     6    \\

1892: KUSG  & St.~George, UT  &   12    &  10  &      359       &

1893: 191   \\ \hline

1894: \end{tabular}

1895: \end{center}

1896: \end{table}

1897: 

1898: Radar detection of showers offers another exciting possibility

1899: \cite{PG}. This method resembles the use of

1900: distant fixed VHF stations for generating reflections off

1901: showers, but allows for a more carefully controlled

1902: environment.

1903: 

1904: \section{Conclusions}

1905: 

1906: A prototype system for the detection of radio-frequency (RF)

1907: pulses associated with extensive air showers of cosmic rays was

1908: tested at the Chicago Air Shower Array and Michigan Muon Array

1909: (CASA/MIA) in Dugway, Utah.  This system was under

1910: consideration for use in conjunction with the Pierre Auger

1911: Project, which seeks to study showers with energies above

1912: $10^{19}$~eV.

1913: 

1914: The system utilized a trigger based on the coincidence of 7 out

1915: of 8 buried muon detectors around the periphery of the CASA

1916: array.  Transients were indeed detected in conjunction with large

1917: showers, but they were identified as arising from the CASA

1918: modules themselves, most likely from the electronics generating

1919: trigger request (TRQ) pulses.  Such transients could be

1920: eliminated when the high voltage (HV) on CASA phototubes was

1921: turned off; in such cases the muon trigger continued to

1922: function.  

1923: By comparing upper limits on detected transients with

1924: simulated pulses, it was possible to place upper bounds on

1925: the rate of detection of RF pulses of various intensities.  These

1926: upper bounds are summarized in Fig.~15; they typically involve

1927: rates of one every few hours for the largest field strengths

1928: claimed in the literature \cite{Atrash}.  

1929: Based on our estimates, it is unlikely that the

1930: present experiment can reach the sensitivity limits of the

1931: Haverah Park results, which reported lower field strengths in

1932: their latest work \cite{Atrash}.

1933: 

1934: A number of lessons have been learned from the present exercise.

1935: These are probably most relevant for any installation

1936: contemplated in conjunction with the proposed Auger project

1937: \cite{Auger}.

1938: 

1939: (1) One must take special care to survey transients produced by

1940: components of the array.  For the Auger detector, one must install

1941: one or more antennae close to the proposed \v{C}erenkov detectors

1942: and their associated digitizers, and study the response to

1943: artificially induced signals.

1944: Based on our experience, in which the present bounds are based on a

1945: small subset (38 hours) of the total data sample (600 hours), one should

1946: focus as soon as possible on a configuration in which usable data can be

1947: gathered.

1948: 

1949: (2) The method of communication between Auger modules will affect

1950: what form of RF detection is feasible.  If radio

1951: links employing microwave ($> 800$~MHz) frequencies are used, the

1952: present system will not be as seriously compromised as it

1953: apparently was by the communication system used at CASA/MIA. On

1954: the other hand, detection of RF signals above 1~GHz will suffer

1955: interference from such a system.

1956: 

1957: (3) Consideration should be given to placement of antennas at

1958: sites sufficiently far from surface detector modules that pulses

1959: from these modules do not constitute a serious source of

1960: interference.  In the Auger case, the modules are arranged in a

1961: triangular array with 1.5~km spacing, so that the maximum spacing

1962: between an antenna inside the array and any module could be as

1963: large as $1.5/\sqrt{3} \simeq 0.87$~km if the antenna is placed

1964: at an equal distance from the three closest modules.

1965: 

1966: (4) Coincidence between RF signals detected at several antennas

1967: is desirable, as was found in the earliest experiments \cite{Chac}.

1968: 

1969: (5) The digital filtering algorithms employed in the present

1970: study, although not yet pushed to their optimal efficiencies,

1971: appear to be limited by the 8-bit dynamic range employed in

1972: detection using a digitizing oscilloscope. Consideration should

1973: be given to a system with larger dynamic range, at least 10-bit

1974: but preferably 12-bit.

1975: 

1976: (6) One can probably afford to economize by reducing the sampling rate,

1977: certainly to 500 MSa/s but perhaps as low as 200 MSa/s, since

1978: transients are expected to have their main frequency components

1979: below 100 MHz, and by reducing the active sampling window from

1980: the present value of 50 $\mu$s to a lower value, depending on the

1981: geometry of the array.

1982: 

1983: (7) The frequency range studied in the present work (23--200~MHz)

1984: will be more useful if continuous RF sources,

1985: such as FM and television stations, are much weaker than

1986: they were at the Dugway site. This is a possibility in the remote

1987: Argentine site at which the first Auger array is to be

1988: constructed \cite{Auger}; a survey of field strengths there would

1989: be desirable.

1990: 

1991: (8) One should take data simultaneously with two antennas

1992: polarized in perpendicular (EW and NS) directions.  This allows

1993: the determination of two components of the electric vector, not

1994: just one of its projections.

1995: 

1996: Although no RF signals have been detected in conjunction with

1997: CASA/MIA events, the present study has revealed a number of

1998: useful criteria for future experiments of similar type.  It is

1999: hoped that a prototype at an Auger site will further focus these

2000: criteria.

2001: 

2002: \section*{Acknowledgments}

2003: 

2004: It is a pleasure to thank Mike Cassidy, Jim Cronin, Brian Fick, Lucy Fortson,

2005: Joe Fowler, Rachel Gall, Brian Newport, Rene Ong, Scott Oser,

2006: Daniel F. Sullivan, Fritz Toevs, Kort Travis, and Augustine Urbas

2007: for collaboration and support on various aspects of this experiment.

2008: Thanks are also due to Bruce Allen, Dave Besson, Maurice Givens, Peter 

2009: Gorham,

2010: Kenny Gross,

2011: Dick Gustafson, Gerard Jendraszkiewicz, Larry Jones, Dave Peterson, John

2012: Ralston, Leslie Rosenberg, David Saltzberg,

2013: Dave Smith, M. Teshima, Stephan Wegerich, and David Wilkinson for

2014: useful discussions.  This work was supported in part by the Enrico Fermi

2015: Institute, the Louis Block Fund, and the Physics Department of the University

2016: of Chicago and in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under

2017: Grant No.~DE FG02 90ER40560.

2018: 

2019: \section*{Appendix A:  Sensitivity Calculation}

2020: 

2021: One of the aims of this study was to evaluate the antenna

2022: response as a function  of shower parameters. The dependence on

2023: $R$, $\theta$, $\alpha$, $E_p$ has been established in \cite{Allan}

2024: (Eq.~(1)). However, there remained an uncertainty as regards

2025: the calibrating factor $s$, for which experimental data do not

2026: supply an exact value. Indeed, we have quoted at least three

2027: versions of it: first, in Eq.~(1) it is set to 20; second,

2028: the Haverah Park group subsequently reported that ${\cal

2029: E}_\nu^N=0.6$, while the Soviet group claimed the value of 3.4

2030: \cite{Atrash}. To make the connection between ${\cal E}_\nu^N$ and $s$, let

2031: us note that $s \simeq {\cal E}_\nu^N/\exp(-1)$. Thus, we can infer that

2032: the Haverah Park group updated Eq.~(1) to $s=1.6$, and

2033: the Soviet group to $s=9.2$.

2034: 

2035: Ideally, we would like to calculate the calibrating factor

2036: precisely from  the rate $R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$,

2037: but unfortunately this rate cannot be obtained accurately from

2038: experiment; we could only set an upper bound on it (Section

2039: 5.3.4). Hence, in this Appendix we will be able to set only an

2040: upper limit on $s$ to get at least some evaluation of the

2041: possible range of its values. We will do it in the following way.

2042: 

2043: Equation (1) and the exact knowledge of the coefficient $k$ in the

2044: formula for the rate of primaries as a function of their energy

2045: $R(E_p)=k/E_p^3$

2046: \cite{REF} can be used to calculate the rate $R({\cal E}_{\nu

2047: EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$. The result will certainly depend on the

2048: calibrating factor $s$. Comparing this rate with the experimental

2049: upper bound, $R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$, an upper

2050: limit will be placed on the calibrating factor.

2051: 

2052: In the process of evaluating $R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal

2053: E}_\nu^0)$ we will  need to integrate the rate of primaries

2054: $R(E_p)$ over solid angle, energy, and detection area. The

2055: question of detection area is of great importance since its lack

2056: of symmetry with respect to the antenna compelled us to make an

2057: important simplifying assumption.

2058: 

2059: \subsection*{Detection area}

2060: 

2061: % This is Figure 18

2062: \begin{figure}[t]

2063: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{nim18.eps}} \caption{Core

2064: locations for 1702 showers giving rise to muon triggering. The

2065: opening angle at the antenna vertex is 2 radians.  The radii of

2066: the inner and outer circular arcs are 100 and 400~m,

2067: respectively.  Axes relative to center of array are $x$

2068: (geographic East) and $y$ (geographic North), in meters.}

2069: \end{figure}

2070: 

2071: Core locations of showers that fire muon triggering are shown in

2072: Fig.~18.  Their distribution over the outlined area appears to be

2073: approximately uniform. To simplify the integration over solid

2074: angle, area, and energy, let us consider a bigger area: part of

2075: the ring with inner radius of 100 m, outer radius of 400 m,

2076: inside the same angle of 2 radians. The rate of showers passing

2077: through this area is bigger than through the one shown in Fig.~18. 

2078: Integration over the bigger area will lead to a greater value

2079: for $R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$.

2080: However, that value will differ from the one calculated after

2081: integration over the outlined area by less than 5\%, as we show

2082: below in Calculation.

2083: 

2084: As was mentioned in Section~4.6, systematic studies have been

2085: performed  only for simulated pulses with $\delta=5$~ns. Thus,

2086: $R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$ [Fig.\ 15(b)] was

2087: obtained under the assumption $R \simeq 200$~m. Though in

2088: reality the detection area is not limited to the area around 

2089: 200~m, we are going to accept that result as a reasonable

2090: approximation.

2091: 

2092: Unfortunately, the area under consideration is not the full ring.

2093: If it were, it could have been proven that the angular distribution

2094: of the electric vector in the horizontal plane is approximately

2095: uniform. Then it would have been easy to derive $R({\cal E}_{\nu

2096: EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$ after calculating $R({\cal E}_\nu>{\cal

2097: E}_\nu^0)$. In that case we wouldn't have to worry about the

2098: polarization of radiation from individual showers.

2099: 

2100: In our case, however, the area is not symmetric. The general

2101: approach of calculating ${\cal E}_{\nu EW}$ for showers with

2102: different zenith angles, azimuth angles and core locations and

2103: then integrating would be too difficult to implement. Therefore,

2104: it would be reasonable to simplify the problem by making the

2105: assumption that all showers are vertical. This will lead to a

2106: rough estimate of the upper limit that can be placed on the

2107: calibrating factor.

2108: 

2109: Now we are almost ready to perform integration. Only one thing

2110: is missing: Since $R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$ was

2111: calculated for the EW projection of the electric field vector, we

2112: will need a relation between ${\cal E}_\nu$ and ${\cal E}_{\nu

2113: EW}$ for showers with different core locations. For this purpose

2114: let us turn to the question of polarization of radiation produced

2115: by a shower.

2116: 

2117: \subsection*{Polarization}

2118: 

2119: The conventional approach assumes linear polarization in the

2120: direction perpendicular to both shower axis and magnetic field

2121: vector. The source of such radiation is the transverse current of

2122: shower particles \cite{KL}.

2123: Alternatively, one can consider radio emission

2124: due to particles' {\it acceleration} in the Earth's magnetic field.

2125: For the time being we will pursue the latter approach but at the end

2126: of this Appendix we will give results for both alternatives.

2127: 

2128: The magnitude and direction of the electric field vector for a

2129: radiating particle are governed by the general formula

2130: $$

2131: {\bf E}({\bf x},t)=e\,\left[\frac{{\bf n}-\boldsymbol{\beta}} {\gamma^2 

2132: (1-\boldsymbol{\beta}\cdot{\bf n})^3\,l^2}\right]_{\rm ret} + 

2133: \frac{e}{c}\,\left[\frac{{\bf n}\times\left[({\bf

2134: n}-\boldsymbol{\beta})\times\dot{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\right]} 

2135: {(1-\boldsymbol{\beta}\cdot{\bf 

2136: n})^3\,l}\right]_{\rm ret} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (A.1)

2137: $$

2138: where $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ is the velocity vector in the units of $c$,

2139: $\dot{\boldsymbol{\beta}}=d\boldsymbol{\beta}/dt$ is the acceleration vector,

2140: divided by $c$, ${\bf  n}$ is a unit vector from the radiating

2141: particle to the antenna, and $l$ is the distance to the particle~\cite{JDJ}. 

2142: The square brackets with subscript ``ret" mean that

2143: the quantities in the brackets are evaluated at the retarded time. (A.1) does

2144: not consider the influence of the index of refraction of air. Here we are 

2145: primarily interested in the direction of the electric field vector and for 

2146: $R>100$ m the effect of the refraction index on polarization is 

2147: insignificant. Ref.~\cite{SRG} will give a full calculation of shower 

2148: radiation, employing a modified formula (A.1) to take into account the 

2149: refraction index.  

2150: 

2151: The first term in (A.1) decreases with distance as $1/l^2$ and represents a 

2152: boosted Coulomb field. It does not produce any radiation. 

2153: The magnitudes of two terms in (A.1) are related as 

2154: $1/(\gamma^2 l)$ and $|\dot{\boldsymbol{\beta}}|/c$. 

2155: The characteristic acceleration of a 30~MeV electron ($\gamma\approx60$) of 

2156: an air shower in the Earth's magnetic field 

2157: ($B\approx0.5$~Gauss) is $|{\bf a}|=ecB/(\gamma m) \approx 

2158: 4.4\cdot10^{13}$~m/s$^2$.

2159: Even when an electron is as close to the antenna as 1000~m,

2160: the first term is three orders of magnitude 

2161: smaller than the second and can be neglected. 

2162: The second term falls as $1/l$ 

2163: and is associated with a radiation field. It describes the electric field of 

2164: a single radiating particle for most geometries relevant to extensive

2165: air showers. 

2166: 

2167: % This is Figure 19

2168: \begin{figure}[t]

2169: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9

2170: \textwidth]{nim19.eps}}

2171: \caption{Geometry of a vertical shower. Axes relative to  antenna

2172: are $x$ (magnetic West), $y$ (magnetic South) and $z$ (up). 

2173: Vector {\bf B} lies in the $yOz$ plane.}

2174: \end{figure}

2175: 

2176: Consider the frame centered at the antenna, with axis $Ox$ going

2177: to  the magnetic West, $Oy$ to the South and $Oz$ directly up. For

2178: vertical showers in this frame $\boldsymbol{\beta}=(0,0,-1)$, while

2179: $\dot{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ is parallel to $Ox$, or, in other words, to the

2180: $(1,0,0)$ vector (see Fig.~19).\  Let $\psi$ be the angle between

2181: $Ox$ and the direction to the shower core, $R$ the distance to the

2182: core, and $h$ the altitude of the radiating

2183: particle. Then ${\bf n}=\left(-\frac{R\cos\psi }{\sqrt{h^2+R^2}},

2184: -\frac{R\sin\psi}{\sqrt{h^2+R^2}},-\frac{h}{\sqrt{h^2+R^2}}\right)$.

2185: Typical values for $R$ are a few hundred meters, and for $h$

2186: several kilometers, so $R/h$ can be considered small. 

2187: The denominator of the second term of Eq.~(A.1) is independent 

2188: of $\psi$. The numerator determines that, to leading

2189: (second) order in $R/h$, the

2190: electric field vector lies in the horizontal plane and is

2191: parallel to $(\cos2\psi,\sin2\psi,0)$. The magnitude of the numerator is 

2192: independent of the angle $\psi$ up to terms of the order $R^4/h^4$.

2193: 

2194: This result shows that although particles are accelerated by the

2195: Earth's magnetic field in the EW direction, the polarization of

2196: the resulting radiation does not show preference for a particular

2197: direction. In other words, assuming uniform distribution of

2198: shower cores around the antenna (uniform distribution of $\psi$),

2199: one obtains a uniform angular distribution of the electric field vector.

2200: 

2201: The most important result of this section for the following

2202: calculation is the relation between ${\cal E}_{\nu EW}$ and

2203: ${\cal E}_\nu$:

2204: $$

2205: {\cal E}_{\nu EW}={\cal E}_\nu|\cos2\psi|

2206: $$

2207: 

2208: \subsection*{Calculation}

2209: 

2210: Let us now calculate the rate $R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal

2211: E}_\nu^0)$ as a function of $s$. For vertical showers Eq.~(1) 

2212: becomes

2213: $$

2214: {\cal E}_\nu=s\,\frac{E_p}{10^{17}~\mbox{eV}}\,

2215: \cos\gamma_d\,\exp\left(-\frac{R}{R_0(\nu,0)}\right)\ \ \ \

2216: \mu \mbox{V m}^{-1} \mbox{MHz}^{-1} \,

2217: $$

2218: where $s$ is the calibrating factor, and $\gamma_d$ is a dip angle (the angle

2219: between the magnetic field vector and the direction to magnetic

2220: North). $R_0(\nu,\theta)$ only depends slightly on $\theta$ when

2221: $\theta<35^{\circ}$. The dependence on $\nu$ is not very

2222: significant, either. Ref.\ [2] quotes two numbers: At

2223: $\nu=55$~MHz $R_0$ equals 110 m, while at $\nu=32$~MHz $R_0$

2224: equals 140 m. The form of the dependence is not well known,

2225: although it is clear that $R_0$ becomes larger as $\nu$

2226: decreases. Assuming linear dependence for simplicity, one can

2227: evaluate $R_0=130$~m at $\nu=39$~MHz, the median frequency of the

2228: main region of investigation [Section~5.3.1 (b)]. This value of

2229: $R_0$ will be used in this Appendix.

2230: 

2231: Consider showers with impact parameter $R$, direction to the

2232: core  given by angle $\psi$, and primary energy

2233: $$

2234: E_p>E'_p({\cal E}_\nu^0, R, \psi)={\cal

2235: E}_\nu^0\,\frac{10^{17}}{s\cos\gamma_d}\,\frac{\exp(R/R_0)}{|\cos2\psi|}\

2236: \ \ \mbox{eV}

2237: $$

2238: where ${\cal E}_\nu^0$ is expressed in $\mu \mbox{V m}^{-1} \mbox{MHz}^{-1}$.

2239: Only these showers induce ${\cal E}_{\nu

2240: EW}={\cal E}_\nu\,|\cos2\psi|>{\cal E}_\nu^0$. So, the rate of

2241: events where the East-West projection of the pulse is greater

2242: than some value, $R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$, equals

2243: the rate $Z$ of such showers passing through the detection area.

2244: 

2245: Now let us determine the limits of integration. We assume that

2246: although we consider vertical showers only, the solid angle of

2247: observation is limited by a zenith angle $\theta_m=50^{\circ}$.

2248: 

2249: We also take into account that magnetic North at Dugway is located

2250: $14^{\circ}$ east of true North. Therefore, the detection area is

2251: bound by lines $\psi=57^{\circ}+14^{\circ}=71^{\circ}$ and

2252: $\psi=-57^{\circ}+14^{\circ}=-43^{\circ}$.

2253: 

2254: We know that the rate of primaries (in

2255: $\mbox{eV}^{-1}\mbox{km}^{-2}\mbox{sr}^{-1}\mbox{h}^{-1}$)  is

2256: given by $R(E_p)=k/E_p^3$. Hence, the integration over solid

2257: angle, area and energy gives the desired rate $Z$ (in

2258: $\mbox{h}^{-1}$)

2259: $$

2260: \begin{array}{l} Z=\int d\Omega\int dA\int\limits_{E'_p({\cal E}_\nu^0,

2261: R,\psi)}^{+\infty}  R(E_p)\,dE_p=\\ \quad

2262: 2\pi\int\limits_0^{\theta_m}\sin\theta\,d\theta

2263: \int\limits_{-43^{\circ}}^{71^{\circ}}d\psi

2264: \int\limits_{100~\mbox{m}}^{400~\mbox{m}}R\,dR\int\limits_{E'_p({\cal

2265: E}_\nu^0, R, \psi)}^{+\infty}\frac{k}{E_p^3}\,dE_p=\\ \quad

2266: 2\pi(1-\cos\theta_m)\int\limits_{-43^{\circ}}^{71^{\circ}}d\psi

2267: \int\limits_{100~\mbox{m}}^

2268: {400~\mbox{m}}R\,dR\,\,\frac{k}{2E_p^{\prime2}}=\\\quad\ \pi

2269: k(1-\cos\theta_m)\left(\frac{s\cos\gamma_d}{10^{17}{\cal E}_\nu^0}\right)^2

2270: \int\limits_{-43^{\circ}}^{71^{\circ}}\cos^22\psi\,d\psi

2271: \int\limits_{100~\mbox{m}}^{400~\mbox{m}}Re^{-2R/R_0}\,dR\

2272: \ \ \ \ \ \ (A.2)

2273: \end{array}

2274: $$

2275: Both integrals in Eq.~(A.2) can be readily calculated to

2276: obtain the following expression:

2277: $$

2278: R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)=Z\approx\pi

2279: k(1-\cos\theta_m)\left(\frac{s\cos\gamma_d}{10^{17}{\cal

2280: E}_\nu^0}\right)^2\cdot2.0\cdot10^3 \ \ \ \ \

2281: \mbox{h}^{-1}

2282: $$

2283: where $k$ is in $\mbox{eV}^2\mbox{m}^{-2}\mbox{sr}^{-1}\mbox{h}^{-1}$ and

2284: ${\cal E}_\nu^0$ is in $\mu\mbox{V/m/MHz}$.

2285: Let us note here that integration over the area outlined in Fig.~18

2286: (instead of the part of the ring) has also been calculated numerically with 

2287: the help

2288: of {\it Mathematica}, with the result

2289: $$ R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal

2290: E}_\nu^0)\approx\pi k(1-\cos\theta_m)\left(\frac{s\cos\gamma_d}{10^{17}{\cal

2291: E}_\nu^0}\right)^2\cdot1.9\cdot10^3 \ \ \ \ \

2292: \mbox{h}^{-1}

2293: $$

2294: i.e., only a 5\% difference. Thus, the rapidly decreasing exponential

2295: suppresses the contribution at large distances from the antenna where

2296: the part of the ring does not overlap the outlined area.

2297: 

2298: Now we can place an upper limit on $s$ using this formula for the

2299: rate $R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)$ and the experimental

2300: upper limit on this rate, $R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal

2301: E}_\nu^0)$ from Section~5.3.4:

2302: $$

2303: R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0) \approx

2304: \pi k(1-\cos\theta_m)\left(\frac{s\cos\gamma_d}{10^{17}{\cal

2305: E}_\nu^0}\right)^2\cdot1.9\cdot10^3<R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal

2306: E}_\nu^0) \ \ \ \ \ (A.3)

2307: $$

2308: $$

2309: s<\frac{10^{17}{\cal

2310: E}_\nu^0}{\cos\gamma_d}\cdot\sqrt{\frac{R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu

2311: EW}>{\cal E}_\nu^0)}{\pi k(1-\cos\theta_m)\cdot1.9\cdot10^3}} \ \

2312: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (A.4)

2313: $$

2314: >From Eq.~(\ref{eqn:uplimEW}),

2315: ${\cal E}_\nu^0\cdot\sqrt{R^{up}({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal

2316: E}_\nu^0)}\approx0.943~\mu\mbox{V/m/MHz/h}^{1/2}$. This 

2317: value, substituted into~(A.4) together with $k=3.84\cdot10^{24}~\mbox{eV}^2

2318: \mbox{m}^{-2}\mbox{sr}^{-1}\mbox{s}^{-1} =

2319: 1.38\cdot10^{28}~\mbox{eV}^2 \mbox{m}^{-2}\mbox{sr}^{-1}\mbox{h}^{-1} \

2320: $ \cite{REF}, $\theta_m=50^{\circ}$ and $\gamma_d=68^{\circ}$, gives the 

2321: final

2322: result: $s<46$. A similar calculation employing North-South

2323: results [Eq.~(\ref{eqn:uplimNS})] gives $s<34$.

2324: 

2325: If the main source of radiation is transverse current, not

2326: particles' acceleration, then ${\bf E}$ is parallel to

2327: $\boldsymbol{\beta}\times{\bf B}$~\cite{KL} and for vertical showers ${\cal

2328: E}_{\nu EW}={\cal E}_\nu$.

2329: This changes the integral of $\cos^2 2\psi$ over $\psi$ in formula~(A.2)

2330: to the integral of 1 over $\psi$, leading to $s<31$. This is the

2331: smallest upper limit we can place on $s$.

2332: Unfortunately, this upper limit is not quite small enough to rule

2333: out the initial Haverah Park group claim of $s=20$, let alone the

2334: values of 9.2 or 1.6. To facilitate comparison of results of

2335: different studies, let's rewrite formula~(A.3) under the

2336: assumption of the transverse current mechanism. In simplified form it

2337: is

2338: $$

2339: R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal

2340: E}_\nu^0)\approx9.16\cdot10^{-4}\,\left(\frac{s}{{\cal E}_\nu^0}\right)^2

2341: $$

2342: 

2343: The transverse current mechanism cannot account for the NS component for 

2344: vertical showers so we will employ the model discussed above in Polarization.

2345: According to it, ${\cal E}_{\nu NS}={\cal E}_\nu|\sin2\psi|$. Then, 

2346: formula~(A.3) transforms into 

2347: $$

2348: R({\cal E}_{\nu NS}>{\cal

2349: E}_\nu^0)\approx4.86\cdot10^{-4}\,\left(\frac{s}{{\cal

2350: E}_\nu^0}\right)^2

2351: $$ 

2352: The plots of $R({\cal E}_{\nu EW}>{\cal

2353: E}_\nu^0)$ and $R({\cal E}_{\nu NS}>{\cal

2354: E}_\nu^0)$ for different values of $s$ are shown in Figs.~16 and 17.

2355: 

2356: The noise level at Dugway is too high and the acquired sample is too

2357: limited in statistics and dynamic range

2358: to allow us to place upper limits strict enough to

2359: check the claims of the two groups. We hope that further

2360: improvement of the data processing technique will reduce the

2361: noise contribution. The dip angle $\gamma_d$ is much smaller at the

2362: Auger site in Argentina ($34^{\circ}$ versus $68^{\circ}$ at

2363: Utah). This leads to bigger electric fields for vertical showers,

2364: facilitating the detection of shower radiation. We also expect

2365: that the Argentina site will be quieter than Dugway and some

2366: clarity as regards the calibrating factor will be established.

2367: 

2368: \section*{Appendix B: Relation between simulated pulse strength

2369: and peak detected voltage}

2370: 

2371: Within the bandwidth $\delta\nu$, the antenna feels the electric field

2372: ${\cal E}_\nu\cdot\delta\nu$. Then, the instantaneous power flow is 

2373: given by $({\cal E}_\nu\cdot\delta\nu)^2/(120\pi)$, where 

2374: $120\pi~\Omega$ is the impedance of free space. The antenna effective

2375: aperture is equal

2376: to $G_{ant}\,(\lambda^2/4\pi)$, $G_{ant}\simeq2.5$ being the

2377: antenna gain. 

2378: Hence, it supplies a power of

2379: $$

2380: W=\frac{({\cal E}_\nu\cdot\delta\nu)^2}{(120\pi)} \cdot

2381: G_{ant}\,\frac{\lambda^2}{4\pi}

2382: $$

2383: to the input of the feedline cable. 

2384: Subsequently, this power is transmitted by 60 feet of RG-58U cable 

2385: with average attenuation at 39 MHz estimated to be 1.44~dB or a 

2386: factor of $L\simeq1.4$ in power. So, the power at the input of the 

2387: preamplifier is $W/L$. 

2388: The impedances in the antenna system were matched, in particular, the 

2389: resistance of the preamplifier was equal to the characteristic impedance of 

2390: the cable, $R=50~\Omega$. The power at the input of the 

2391: preamplifier is transformed into a peak voltage $V_{pk}$ across the 

2392: preamplifier resistance $R$, i.e.\ $W/L=V_{pk}^2/R$.

2393: Thus,

2394: $$

2395: {\cal E}_\nu=\frac{1}{\delta\nu}\sqrt{W\,\frac{480\pi^2}{G_{ant}\lambda^2}}

2396: = \frac{\nu}{\delta\nu}\,\frac{2V_{pk}}{c}\,\sqrt\frac{120\pi^2L}{G_{ant}R}

2397: = \frac{\nu}{\delta\nu}\,\frac{2V_{pk}}{c}\,\sqrt\frac{120\pi^2}{GR}

2398: $$

2399: where $G=G_{ant}/L\simeq1.8$ is the antenna-cable system gain.

2400: For specific values used in data analysis (Sec.~5.3.1.)  $\delta\nu=54-24=30$~MHz, $\nu=39$~MHz,

2401: $$

2402: {\cal E}_\nu=0.042\,\frac{V_{pk}}{\sqrt{G}}

2403: =0.031\,\frac{V_{pk}}{\sqrt{G/1.8}} \ \ \ \mu\mbox{V/m/MHz}

2404: $$

2405: where $V_{pk}$ is in $\mu$V.

2406: 

2407: The above derivation implies that the electric field perceived by the

2408: antenna is due to frequencies in the $\delta\nu$ range only.

2409: However, the simulated pulse voltage with $V_{pk}=1.3$~mV has components 

2410: in the whole frequency range (see Fig.~4, bottom), i.e., it is the result 

2411: of an imaginary ``electric field" with very diverse frequencies. To

2412: find what $V_{pk}$ would be if our antenna were sensitive to

2413: 24-54~MHz only, the forward and then inverse (for 24-54~MHz

2414: region) Fourier transforms of the simulated pulse voltage have been

2415: performed. The contribution of 24-54~MHz region into the pulse

2416: peak voltage of 1.3~mV appeared to be equal to 442~$\mu$V.

2417: This leads to a corrected formula:

2418: $$

2419: {\cal E}_\nu=0.031\,\frac{442}{1300}\,\frac{V_{pk}}{\sqrt{G/1.8}}=0.011\,

2420: \frac{V_{pk}}{\sqrt{G/1.8}}

2421: \ \ \ \mu\mbox{V/m/MHz}

2422: $$

2423: 

2424: This formula establishes the relation between the simulated pulse 

2425: strength ${\cal E}_\nu$ and its peak voltage $V_{pk}$ at 

2426: the filter-preamplifier configuration. 

2427: $G=1.8$ was assumed throughout the paper.

2428: 

2429: \section*{Appendix C: Cost considerations for Auger project}

2430: 

2431: At present we can only present a rough sketch of criteria for

2432: detection in the 30--100~MHz range. Data would be digitized at a

2433: 500~MHz rate at each station and stored in a rolling manner, with

2434: at least 20 microseconds of data in the pipeline at any moment.

2435: Upon receipt of a trigger signaling the presence of a ``large''

2436: shower ($> 10^{18}$~eV), these data would be merged into the rest

2437: of the data stream at each station.

2438: 

2439: Per station, we estimate the following additional costs, in US

2440: dollars, for RF pulse detection:

2441: 

2442: \begin{center}

2443: \begin{tabular}{l l c} \hline

2444: Two antennas and protection circuitry:   & 200 & (a) \\

2445: Mounting hardware:                       & 100 & (b) \\

2446: Cables and connectors:                   & 200 & (c) \\

2447: Preamps:                                 & 500 & (d) \\

2448: Digitization and memory electronics:     &2000 & (e) \\ \hline

2449: Total per station:                       &3000 & (f) \\ \hline

2450: \end{tabular}

2451: \end{center}

2452: 

2453: \noindent

2454: 

2455: \noindent (a) Two military-surplus log-periodic antennas; crossed

2456: polarizations.

2457: 

2458: \noindent (b) Highly dependent on other installations at site.

2459: Antennas are to be pointed vertically but optimum elevation not

2460: yet determined.

2461: 

2462: \noindent (c) Antennas are mounted near central data acquisition

2463: site of each station, but sufficiently far from any sources of RF

2464: interference such as switching power supplies. Alternative

2465: location of receiving stations at interstitial positions in the

2466: array would require microwave communication links and auxiliary

2467: power supplies and would add to cost.

2468: 

2469: \noindent (d) Commercial GaAsFET preamps and gas discharge tubes.

2470: 

2471: \noindent (e) Subject to prototype development experience.  Power

2472: requirements not yet known.

2473: 

2474: \noindent (f) The number of stations to be equipped with RF

2475: detection will depend on further prototype experience.

2476: \bigskip

2477: 

2478: The above estimate assumes that one can power the preamps and DAQ

2479: electronics from the supply at each station without substantial

2480: added cost.  It also assumes that a ``large-event trigger'' will

2481: be available at each station.

2482: One consideration may be the acquisition of antennas

2483: robust enough to withstand extreme weather (particularly wind)

2484: conditions.

2485: 

2486: For detection at frequencies above or below 30--100~MHz, the

2487: criteria are not yet well enough developed to permit any cost

2488: estimate.

2489: 

2490: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2491: 

2492: \bibitem{Jel} J. V. Jelley {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf 205}, 327 (1965);

2493: Nuovo Cimento {\bf A46}, 649 (1966); N. A. Porter {\it et al.},

2494: Phys.~Lett.~{\bf 19}, 415 (1965); 

2495: T. Weekes, in {\it Radio Detection of

2496: High Energy Particles} (Proceedings of First International Workshop RADHEP

2497: 2000, Los Angeles, California, 16--18 November 2000), AIP Conference

2498: Proceedings. No.\ 579, edited by D. Saltzberg and P. Gorham (AIP, Melville,

2499: NY, 2001), p.\ 3.

2500: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0102342;%%

2501: 

2502: \bibitem{Chac} P. R. Barker, W. E. Hazen, and A. Z. Hendel, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.

2503: {\bf 18}, 51 (1967); W. E. Hazen, {\it et al.}, {\it ibid.} {\bf

2504: 22}, 35 (1969); 

2505: %%CITATION = PRLTA,22,35;%%

2506: {\bf 24}, 476 (1970).

2507: %%CITATION = PRLTA,24,476;%%

2508: 

2509: \bibitem{Allan} H. R. Allan, in {\it Progress in Elementary Particles and

2510: Cosmic Ray Physics}, v. 10, edited by J. G. Wilson and S. G.

2511: Wouthuysen (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971), p. 171, and

2512: references therein.

2513: 

2514: \bibitem{Atrash} V. B. Atrashkevich {\it et al.}, Yad.~Fiz.~{\bf 28}, 366 

2515: (1978).

2516: %%CITATION = YAFIA,28,712;%%

2517: 

2518: \bibitem{Agasa} K. Kadota {\it et al.}, Proc.~23rd International Conference 

2519: on

2520: Cosmic Rays (ICRC-23), Calgary, 1993, v.~4, p.~262; Tokyo

2521: Workshop on Techniques for the Study of Extremely High Energy

2522: Cosmic Rays, Tanashi, Tokyo, 27 -- 30 Sept. 1993.

2523: 

2524: \bibitem{GS} C. Castagnoli {\it et al.}, Proc.~ICRC-23, Calgary, 1993,

2525: v.~4, p.~258.

2526: 

2527: \bibitem{Yak} P. I. Golubnichii, A. D. Filonenko, and V. I. Yakovlev,

2528: Izv. Akad. Nauk {\bf 58}, 45 (1994).

2529: %%CITATION = BUPSA,58,2047;%%

2530: 

2531: \bibitem{Gau} R. Baishya {\it et al.}, Proc.~ICRC-23, Calgary, 1993, V.~4,

2532: p.~266; Gauhati University Collaboration, P. Datta {\it et al.}, Proceedings

2533: of RADHEP 2000 \cite{Jel}, p.\ 98.

2534: 

2535: \bibitem{Ask} G. A. Askar'yan, Zh.~Eksp.~Teor.~Fiz.~{\bf 41}, 616 (1961)

2536: [Sov.~Phys.--JETP {\bf 14}, 441 (1962)];

2537: Zh.~Eksp.~Teor.~Fiz.~{\bf 48}, 988 (1965) [Sov.~Phys.--JETP {\bf

2538: 21}, 658 (1965)].

2539: 

2540: \bibitem{KL} F. D. Kahn and I. Lerche, Proc.~Roy.~Soc.~{\bf A 289}, 206

2541: (1966).

2542: 

2543: \bibitem{SC} S. A. Colgate, J.~Geophys.~Res.~{\bf 72}, 4869 (1972).

2544: 

2545: \bibitem{RRW} R. R. Wilson, Phys.~Rev. {\bf 108}, 155 (1967).

2546: 

2547: \bibitem{atm} R. A.  Roussel-Dupr\'e, A. V. Gurevitch, T. Tunnell, and G. M.

2548: Milikh, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-12601-MS,

2549: November, 1993.

2550: 

2551: \bibitem{Auger} Auger Collaboration, Pierre Auger Project Design Report

2552: (2nd Edition, November, 1996, revised March 14, 1997), Fermilab,

2553: 1997 (unpublished); J. W. Cronin, Rev.~Mod.~Phys.~{\bf 71}, S165

2554: (1999).

2555: %%CITATION = RMPHA,71,S165;%%

2556: 

2557: \bibitem{rh} J. L. Rosner and D. A. Suprun, Proceedings of RADHEP 2000

2558: \cite{Jel}, p.\ 81, astro-ph/0101089.

2559: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0101089;%%

2560: 

2561: \bibitem{ZHS} E. Zas, F. Halzen, and T. Stanev, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45}, 362

2562: (1992).

2563: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,362;%%

2564: 

2565: \bibitem{Saltz} P. Gorham {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 62}, 8590 (2000);

2566: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0004007;%%

2567: D. Saltzberg {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 2802 (2001);

2568: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0011001;%%

2569: D. Saltzberg {\it et al.}, Proceedings of RADHEP 2000 \cite{Jel}, p.\ 225.

2570: 

2571: \bibitem{radar} P. M. S. Blackett and A. C. B. Lovell, Proc.\ Roy.\ Soc.\

2572: {\bf 177}, 183 (1941).

2573: 

2574: \bibitem{PG} P. W. Gorham, Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 15}, 177 (2001).

2575: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0001041;%%

2576: 

2577: \bibitem{Sov} S. N. Vernov {\it et al.}, Pis'ma v ZhETF {\bf 5}, 157 (1967)

2578: [Sov.~Phys.--JETP Letters {\bf 5}, 126 (1967)];

2579: Can.~J.~Phys.~{\bf 46}, S241 (1968).

2580: 

2581: \bibitem{CASAnim} A. Borione {\it et al.}, Nucl.~Instrum.~Meth.~A {\bf 346},

2582: 329 (1994).

2583: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A346,329;%%

2584: 

2585: \bibitem{DSmith} D. A. Smith {\it et al.}, J. Geophys.\ Res.\ {\bf 104},

2586: 4189 (1999).

2587: 

2588: \bibitem{BLANCA} L. F. Fortson {\it et al.}, in Proceedings of the 26th

2589: International Conference on Cosmic Rays (ICRC 99), Salt Lake

2590: City, 17--25 August 1999, vol.\ 3, p.\ 125; {\it ibid.}, vol.\  5,

2591: p.~332, 335; J. Fowler, Ph.~D.~ Thesis, University of Chicago,

2592: 1999 (unpublished).

2593: 

2594: \bibitem{DICE} K. Boothby {\it et al.}, Ap.\ J. {\bf 491}, L35 (1997); 

2595: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9710168;%%

2596: D. B. Kieda and S. P. Swordy, in Proceedings of the 26th International

2597: Conference on Cosmic Rays (ICRC 99), Salt Lake City, 17--25

2598: August 1999, vol.\ 3, p.\ 191; S. P. Swordy and D. B. Kieda, Astropart.\

2599: Phys.\ {\bf 13}, 137 (2000).

2600: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9909381;%%

2601: 

2602: \bibitem{HiRes} T. Abu-Zayyad {\it et al.}, in Proceedings of the 26th

2603: International Conference on Cosmic Rays (ICRC 99), Salt Lake

2604: City, 17--25 August 1999, vol.\ 3, p.\ 260 and vol.\ 5, p.~365; T.

2605: Abu-Zayyad {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 450}, 253 (2000).

2606: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A450,253;%%

2607: 

2608: \bibitem{TV} As listed on the Web site

2609:  http://stations.triathlon.net/cgi-radio/.

2610: 

2611: \bibitem{LFfil} Microwave Filter Company, Inc., 6743 East Kinne St.,

2612: East Syracuse, NY 13057.

2613: 

2614: \bibitem{mag} The magnetic declination (14$^\circ$ east of true north)

2615: and inclination ($\simeq 68^\circ$ N) are taken, respectively,

2616: from a USGS chart of the Dugway site and the map site

2617: http://geomag.usgs.gov/dod.html.

2618: 

2619: \bibitem{REF} M. A. Lawrence, R. J. O. Reid, and A. A. Watson,

2620: J.~Phys.~G {\bf 17}, 733 (1991).

2621: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G17,733;%%

2622: 

2623: \bibitem{mutrig} R. Gall and K. D. Green, UMC-CASA note, Aug.~23, 1996

2624: (unpublished).

2625: 

2626: \bibitem{PM} P. Mooney, private communication of specifications from

2627: Dorne and Margolin.

2628: 

2629: \bibitem{EZNEC} See http://www.eznec.com for further information and a

2630: demonstration version.

2631: 

2632: \bibitem{Gross} K. Gross, private communication.

2633: 

2634: \bibitem{WL} {\tt Wavelab}, Stanford University.  See

2635: http://www-stat.stanford.edu/$\sim$wavelab/

2636: 

2637: \bibitem{DFS} D. F. Sullivan, Master's Thesis, University of Chicago, 1999

2638: (unpublished).

2639: 

2640: \bibitem{SRG} D. A. Suprun, P. W. Gorham, and J. L. Rosner, astro-ph/0211273.

2641: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0211273;%%

2642: 

2643: \bibitem{FC} G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins,

2644: Phys.~Rev.~D {\bf 57}, 3873 (1998).

2645: %%CITATION = PHYS-ICS 9711021;%%

2646: 

2647: %\bibitem{Atiya} M. Atiya, M. Ito, J. Haggerty, C. Ng, and F. W. Sippach,

2648: %Nucl.~Inst.~Meth. A {\bf 279}, 180 (1989).

2649: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A279,180;%%

2650: 

2651: %\bibitem{Bryman} D. Bryman, J. V. Cresswell, M. LeNoble, and R. Poutissou,

2652: %IEEE Trans.~{\bf NS-38}, 295 (1991).

2653: %%CITATION = IETNA,38,295;%%

2654: 

2655: \bibitem{KAM} A. D. Marino (for the KamLAND Collaboration), ``Waveform

2656: Digitization in the KamLAND Experiment,'' in {\it Nuclear Physics in the 21st

2657: century}, INPC conference, Berkeley, CA, 30 July -- 3 August, 2001, edited by

2658: E. Norman and G. Wozniak; KamLAND Collaboration, F. Beiseer {\it et al.},

2659: ``Waveform digitization for KamLAND,'', Poster P58, in {\it Proceedings of the

2660: 19th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (Neutrino

2661: 2000)}, Sudbury, Canada, 16--21 Jun 2000, edited by J. Law, {\it et al.}

2662: (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2001), Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 91}, 2001.

2663:    

2664: \bibitem{RICE} G. Frichter, D. W. McKay, and J. P. Ralston, Phys.~Rev.~D {\bf

2665: 53}, 1684 (1996); 

2666: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9507078;%%

2667: RICE Collaboration, {\it Proceedings of 25th International

2668: Cosmic Ray Conference}, Durban, South Africa, 28 July - 8 August 1997,

2669: edited by M. S. Potgieter, B. C. Raubenheimer, and D. J. van der Walt

2670: (World Scientific, 1998), preprint astro-ph/9709223;

2671: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9709223;%%

2672: D. Besson, in Proceedings of RADHEP 2000 \cite{Jel}, p.\ 157;

2673: S. Razzaque {\it et al.}, preprint astro-ph/0112505 (unpublished);

2674: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0112505;%%

2675: I. Kravchenko {\it et al.}, preprint astro-ph/0112372 (unpublished).

2676: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0112372;%%

2677: 

2678: \bibitem{JDJ} J. D. Jackson, {\it Classical Electrodynamics}, 2nd edition 

2679: (Wiley, 1975), p.~657.

2680: 

2681: \end{thebibliography}

2682: \end{document}

2683: #!/bin/csh -f

2684: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script  uufiles

2685: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html

2686: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:

2687: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., nimf.uu

2688: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)

2689: # then say        csh nimf.uu

2690: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):

2691: #    uudecode nimf.uu ;   uncompress nimf.tar.Z ;

2692: #    tar -xvf nimf.tar

2693: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the

2694: # filename in "begin" line below to nimf.tar_Z , then execute

2695: #    uudecode nimf.uu

2696: #    compress -d nimf.tar_Z

2697: #    tar -xvf nimf.tar

2698: #

2699: uudecode $0

2700: chmod 644 nimf.tar.Z

2701: zcat nimf.tar.Z | tar -xvf -

2702: rm $0 nimf.tar.Z

2703: exit

2704: 

2705: