[daip] Test Session on June 4

Eric Greisen egreisen at aoc.nrao.edu
Mon Jun 23 19:46:53 EDT 2003


Data Analysts writes:

 > I have looked at the data tape you sent from my test run on June 4. Thanks
 > for getting it to me so quickly. I think I understand the numbers on it,
 > but I thought I would make a couple of inquiries to make sure. I ran FILLM
 > and generated a data base for the three antennas in my array. The point of
 > this test was to measure the system temperatures as we pointed closer and
 > closer to the Sun. After creating the data base, I ran LISTR with
 > DPARM(1)=10, which is advertised as giving the system temperatures. The
 > numbers I get appear to be *proportional to * the system temperature, but
 > not the system temperature itself. For example, for a pointing far from
 > the Sun I get a number of about 190, where I would expect 50. The scale on
 > the printout says 1000=1.0 Kelvin, which makes absolutely no sense.
 > As long as these numbers are indeed proportional to the system
 > temperature, I can work with them, and indeed have already done so. I
 > suspect there is something funky about the normalization or conversion
 > number to true system temperatures. However, to be absolutely sure, I
 > thought I would talk to some experts and make sure I was not studying the
 > power settings on the array operators' microwave ovens. Any input you
 > could give would be helpful.

I forgot that LISTR would display something from the TY table - I
always use SNPLT and PRTAB.  The VLA gives us only one "temperature"
in two forms, separated by a single scaling factor which I think is
the same for all antennas.  The temperature in something like degrees
appears in one of the columns (Tant) while the number used to scale
the data to deci-Jy has been stored in the "Tsys" column (values
around 0.2 or so).  Neither of these are calibrated Tsys values - the
calibrations can be quite far off with an antenna-dependent error -
but they are proportional to the system temperature.  If they were
correctly calibrated, then we would not need the amplitude part of
CALIB.

Eric Greisen



More information about the Daip mailing list