used for this purpose. We measure a 2$\sigma$ angular diameter for L483 of 47 at both 350 and 450 [$\mu$m]{}. A much larger sample is required to draw any conclusions, but the exact agreement between these values, combined with the above discussion, leads us to conclude that instrumental effects are primarily responsible for the discrepancy in source sizes. However, the fact that this discrepancy is observed in even the most compact SHARC-II sources suggests a more subtle effect than simple insensitivity to extended emission beyond a fixed size scale. We will return to this question of sensitivity to extended emission in §\[models\], but we note here the basic conclusion from that section that the observations presented in this survey are insensitive to smoothly varying extended emission.

An inability to completely recover extended emission has important implications for the flux densities in 40 apertures presented in Table \[properties1\]. Furthermore, the fact that several sources in Figures \[sizesfig\] and \[sizesfig2\] with less than 50 minutes of total integration time show increasing diameters with integration time right up until the full integration suggests that longer integration times may be required on such sources to reach the size scale at which the SHARC-II array 