[daip] Re: CLCOR "rates"

[Leonia Kogan]

Mark,

I have fixed (??) the DELZN problem which was fixed :) yesterday with 
mistake.
Can you try it tomorrow using those inputs you complained DELZN did not 
work
(the outfile name corrupted).

I have ??? about the 'rate' problem:

1. Are you using other inputs for DELZN to get DELZN working?
2. DELZN does not need data themself. Instead it use SN table. So  
'fixing the data' using CLCOR ('ATMO') you probaly run FRING or what to 
get the new SN table as input for
second try of DELZN. Do you?
3. Please run for me DELZN with the virgin CL table and send me the 
corrected CL table
    I want to see the RATE column
4. Run CLCOR using the DELZN outfile using a firgin CL table, and send 
me the corrected      CL table
    I want to see the RATE columns.
5. How did you create input file for CLCOR ('atmo') with one entry for 
each antenna?
6. I have checked DELZN/CLCOR writing/reading the file and do not see an 
error .
    So send me please the input paparameters of DELZN/CLCOR you have used.
7. I hope you do not doubt in RATE column effect in CL table generally??
    You do not see this effect of the derivative column in the file and 
this is your concern.
    Is it?
Mark Reid wrote:

>Leonia,
>
>    I re-ran the test I mentioned in a previous email,
>with the same results.  Here is what I said...
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>   I did the following test that seems to support the idea that
>the rate values in the CLCOR ATMO infile have little, if any,
>effect:
>
>   I fitted for 2 parameters each for the atmospheres and clocks
>and produced an input file for CLCOR with one entry per antenna.
>If the rate parameters are used to extrapolate from the one time
>given, then after fixing the data and re-fitting, the re-fit
>results should be near zero.  This was true for the vertical
>delays and clocks, but NOT for the re-fit rates which were close to
>the original values.
>
>   It would be good if you try this test
>(using DELZN and CLCOR) and see if you get the same results.
>The data set on my anonymous FTP site (see earlier email)
>is an excellent one for such tests.
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I'll attach the fitting results.
>
>Maybe I'm making some conceptual error, but this seems to
>contradict your assertions.  Could there be a units problem
>in the rates (eg, CLCOR assumes different units when applying
>them)?
>
>Mark
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark J. Reid                 Phone: 617-495-7470
>Harvard-Smithsonian CfA      Fax  : 617-495-7345
>60 Garden Street             Email: reid at cfa.harvard.edu
>Cambridge, MA 02138, USA     Web  : cfa-www.harvard.edu/~reid
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   10
>  1   0  6 55 48.0     3.731   -15.132   0.91228  -0.92404
>  2   0  6 55 48.0    -3.261    -4.639  -0.04082   0.45716
>  3   0  6 55 48.0    -3.362    -5.723   0.83439  -0.47983
>  4   0  6 55 48.0    -7.661     1.417  -0.07234  -0.66952
>  5   0  6 55 48.0    -8.976     1.191  -0.12377   1.18189
>  6   0  6 55 48.0     0.010   -10.664  -0.07466  -4.98166
>  7   0  6 55 48.0   -10.847     2.790   0.14617  -0.58319
>  8   0  6 55 48.0     3.274    -8.784  -0.02403  -3.85613
>  9   0  6 55 48.0    -8.869     0.000   0.34380   0.00000
> 10   0  6 55 48.0   -20.880    18.799   0.46436  -1.69752
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   10
>  1   0  6 55 48.0    0.612     -1.612     0.89257    -0.91036
>  2   0  6 55 48.0    0.419      1.245    -0.02990     0.45047
>  3   0  6 55 48.0    0.645      0.620     0.96401    -0.68732
>  4   0  6 55 48.0    0.065      2.405    -0.09203    -0.65831
>  5   0  6 55 48.0    0.286      0.883    -0.14340     1.20325
>  6   0  6 55 48.0    0.091     -0.625    -0.07798    -4.98709
>  7   0  6 55 48.0    1.292     -0.020     0.13944    -0.55786
>  8   0  6 55 48.0    0.694      4.630    -0.03009    -3.84246
>  9   0  6 55 48.0    0.029      0.000     0.33393     0.00000
> 10   0  6 55 48.0    1.277     -0.783    -0.11672    -0.63144
>  
>