[daip] Re: your phone message

[Leonia Kogan]

Mark,

I am glad that you agree with my possible mixed up explanation of 
DELZN=>CLCOR at my previous message.

>Instead,
>after CLCOR and re-FRINGing (applying the new CL table), the
>multi-band delays drifted in time.  They drifted in time in a manner
>that suggested that the atmospheric rate (and the clock rate) had
>not been removed.

DELZN put DETIVATIVS into RATE column of CL table so the drifts can not be corrected 
by the current DELZN=>CLCOR if there is only one entry for each antenna.
I think everything should be fine at the case of multi entries.

Another general points: DELAY, RATE colomn are independent at CL table.
DELAY can  be equal zero and RATE equal to something but it does not mean that 
DELAY will be corrected by drifting DELAY with rate equaled RATE.
Instead phase will be drifting with constant RATE in time. IF the delay drifted 
with constant RATE then phase would be drifted in frequency axis by RATE**2

This is my understanding

Anyway DELZN=>CLCOR works now for one entry as it has to work.




Mark Reid wrote:

>Leonia,
>
>On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Leonia Kogan wrote:
>
>  
>
>>May I say again the main point:
>> DEL directs to correct DELAY and
>> DERIVATIVE directs to correct RATE.
>>DEL does not effect RATE; DERIVATIVE does not effect DELAY.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>   I think I agree with everything you stated, but putting
>some values in a CL table is not the final test.  The
>proof of the entire calibration procedure is what matters.
>
>   I expected that after applying the CL table corrections
>that my data would be calibrated.  That is, they would show
>little or no effect of the atmosphere or clock errors that
>I was trying to fix.   This did not happen.  Instead,
>after CLCOR and re-FRINGing (applying the new CL table), the
>multi-band delays drifted in time.  They drifted in time in a manner
>that suggested that the atmospheric rate (and the clock rate) had
>not been removed.
>
>Mark
>
>  
>