[alma-config] Pad 168

[Mark Holdaway]

Al,

I can't find John's pad document, but I suspect that it will indicate a 
position for
pad 168 more like  E626.182  N7.451.516  (ie, did you get this position 
ONLY from
the Y+ document?).

Looking through my old work, I find the above coordinates for pad 168 in 
documentation John
sent in in December 2002.  Station 168 was indeed chosen to be one of 16 
Conway pads which
were to be included in the Y+ array, and as such it was "required" by 
the software to remain
fixed, while 44 other pads were able to move about in the optimization.  
Apparently,
an error was made.  The position you quote below, which is indeed in my 
array configuration files,
is not even in my mask.  The position I quote above is to be found in 
John's mask, and it
must be well within the boundaries of the science preserve.

So, I don't think there is any problem with John's work, and I can't say 
at this point where in
my process the error occurred, but I will say that I will be on the 
lookout for this this sort of
problem in round 2 of the configuration work.

   -Mark


Alwyn Wootten wrote:

>Folks,
>
>I've been talking to Eduardo Donoso and Jorg Eschwey about coordinate
>systems to use for pad location on the site.  We'll finish that discussion
>this afternoon.  Incidental to that, Eduardo informs me that in the
>current configuration plan, pad 168 at N7.451.458 E621.145 actually lies
>slightly outside the boundaries of the preserve.  We need to move it
>slightly north to get it back into the preserve.  This is one of the 16
>'Conway' pads which are used in the Y+ configuration.  This suggests to me
>that there may be a mask error in the vicinity of this coordinate which
>should be changed in the new configuration exercise.
>
>Clear skies,
>Al
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Alma-config mailing list
>Alma-config at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
>http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/alma-config
>
>  
>