<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I did a quick climb up on EA11 and EA23 since they were close enough to allow a lone-worker visit. Attached are photos of the dipole positions. EA11’s 10.3* rotation was clearly more noticeable than EA23’s 5.2* rotation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ephraim<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> evlatests <evlatests-bounces@listmgr.nrao.edu> <b>
On Behalf Of </b>Rob Long via evlatests<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 11, 2024 3:44 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Rick Perley <rperley@nrao.edu>; evlatests <evlatests@nrao.edu><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Clarke, Tracy E CIV USN NRL WASHINGTON DC (USA) <tracy.e.clarke2.civ@us.navy.mil><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [evlatests] Changing P-band Dipole orientations<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>What Rick mentioned is correct. Unfortunately, it is difficult to keep the dipole aligned "perfectly", dependent on which direction the sub-reflector was last rotating. There are nylon guide blocks at the apex of the antenna trombone assembly which do loosen/wear
over time and allow more slop in the dipole orientation. CCW vs CW rotation of the sub-reflector can leave the dipole in slightly different positions. Usually, this is within a couple of degrees.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Rob<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 9/11/2024 10:12 AM, Rick Perley via evlatests wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black">I noted yesterday some discrepant dipole orientations, and noted that I had the impression these were worse than at earlier times. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black">By happenstance, I'm calibrating some old (2019) P-band data for Tracy Clarke, which allows me to judge the correctness of that statement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black">The statement is
<b>wrong</b>. Misorientations were worse in 2019 than now. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black">Tracy's data were taken twice – in March and in September of 2019. The distribution of orientations were in fact worse than now, and also were very different. Antennas
misoriented now were better (or worse) in 2019. Indeed, the correlation between the two 2019 observations is not very strong. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black">I believe these conclusions are not surprising, as the dipoles are known to be subject to rotation caused by the rotating subreflector. Perhaps Rob Long can confirm
this statment. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black">Rick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>evlatests mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:evlatests@listmgr.nrao.edu">evlatests@listmgr.nrao.edu</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://listmgr.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests">https://listmgr.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>