[daip] Re: return of a CALIB failure (31DEC04 AIPS)

[Daniel Lebach]

Hi Eric,

Sorry for the delay -- I was unexpectedly away from my desk all day.

In response to:
>  > 
>  > CALIB5: WARNING: PURE BASELINE RATHER THAN ONLY ANTENNA SOLUTIONS ALLOWE
>  >         D
>  > 
> 
> What are you trying to tell me?  I added this message to warn the
> naive user of CALIB that he is doing a two-antenna solution.  You, as
> someone deliberately doing this, should mentally respond to this
> message by saying "good."
> 
Indeed!  I just wanted to confirm for you that I was using a version
of CALIB for which you enabled this capability.  I guess my use of
such a version was obvious -- apologies for the confusion.

> Was the inclusion of all the stuff that has been reflected a couple of
> times supposed to suggest that there are more problems?
>
I showed you our earlier exchange to help remind you of both the
symptoms of the problems I had back then and (I hoped) your fix.
There are not more problems, just the same old one that has returned
after it had gone away for a while... although perhaps it's now just
an adverb setting problem?  If so, I don't get what it is yet.

> Did you set DOFLAG?
> 
DOFLAG is a new adverb, huh?  I saw it described as a flag for
closure errors (w/o reading the CALIB explain file) and promplty
ignored it.  I used DOFLAG = APARM(6) = 0.  I just read the CALIB
explain file... should DOFLAG not affect the output SN table, just
the FG table?  The FG table is not affected by these CALIB runs (nor
is a new one created).  The explain file does not make entirely
clear in "-1.0 < DOFLAG <= 0.0   ->  -2.5" that this is different
from DOFLAG=2.5 since ABS(DOFLAG) is what gets evaluated, but I
assume the "-2.5" is what you use for ABS(DOFLAG) so that no data
get flagged but "ABS(DOFLAG)=2.5" for the purpose of CALIB printout
to identify misclosures.

I just tried CALIB w/ each of:
ANTENN 1 4 0
ANTENN 1 4 8 0
ANTENN 1 4 8 9 0
(DOFLAG=0 still)

In my quick look at the output SN table, it seems that any scans w/
only two sites available get bad SN solutions.  I also saw several
rows in the SN table for scans w/ > 2 sites that indicate one bad IF
out of 4 when none should be bad.  That looks to me (frankly) like a
CALIB bug, but really I'd have to run more tests to identify the
cause.  I ran FRING with basically the same adverb setttings (except
for DPARMs, which CALIB does not use), and the FRING output SN table
looked fine -- there were no phase components with "INDE" like CALIB
produced in multitudes.

I don't suppose you have a version of CALIB.FOR for 31DEC04 AIPS from
around Sept. 22?  That was about the last time I ran CALIB, and I had
no problems then.

Happy Thanksgiving.  (Sorry to dump this on you just before the
holiday.)

Dan