[daip] Re: Adverb DOFIT

[Jim Ulvestad]

I don't know how/why this is implemented in FRING/KRING.  I have
not ever used it.  I think your instinct to remove it is correct.
If you want to check with someone who might have thought of this
more seriously on the VLBI front, I recommend Fomalont and/or
Walker.  But it probably also would be okay to eliminate it and
see if they notice ...

Jim

Eric Greisen wrote:

>When some user made a query about this adverb in CALIB I examined its
>use there.  I discovered that it was attempting to say (if antenna i
>was not to be fit) that the gain of i is (1,0) and data from all
>baselines to i may be used in fitting the gains of antennas j.  I
>suppose the goal was to use more data but not be dragged by
>questionable antennas.  But forcing a questionable antenna to (1,0)
>which is known to be wrong is worse than letting it be fit.  The
>ANTENNAS adverb allows antenna i to be omitted altogether including
>all baselines i-j.  I changed CALIB to fit all gains but store (1,0)
>for DOFIT false antennas but I think the option should be removed
>entirely.
>
>I now notice that the option also appears in FRING and KRING.  If the
>option is implemented similarly, then it too must be in error I
>suspect.  Does anyone know how it is implemented there?
>
>Do you know of any reason to have this adverb anywhere?
>
>Eric
>  
>