[daip] Your PC table does not corresponds to your data

[Leonia Kogan]

Dear Enno,

 >The PC tables I tried to use were made from that file using VLOG, so 
either the pulse cal data itself does not match the >visibility data, or 
either VLOG or PCLOD are not doing the right thing.
 >Who would be the right person to talk to about this?
If you are speaking about the science then you should correlate your 
data at the Socorro, Bonn or other tested correlator,
load the correlated data into AIPS using an AIPS task (FITLD).
Then PC table will be correct and PCCOR will work, and you should 
address your problem to AIPS.
If you are speaking about testing another correlator then you have to 
address to those correlator people and to yourself.
It is difficult for me to understand what is the cause of the wrong PC 
table. You can do it better.

But still I'll  report the problem at the AIPS meeting (the following 
Wednesday), and you will receive the answer.

Leonia
Enno Middelberg wrote:
> Dear Leonia,
>
>
> so when the PC table does not match the data, is this a problem with 
> the data in 
> http://www.vlba.nrao.edu/astro/VOBS/astronomy/jul07/bm261/bm261cal.vlba.gz? 
>
>
> The PC tables I tried to use were made from that file using VLOG, so 
> either the pulse cal data itself does not match the visibility data, 
> or either VLOG or PCLOD are not doing the right thing.
>
> Who would be the right person to talk to about this?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Enno
>
>
>
> Leonia Kogan wrote:
>> As I told, the 8 pairs of frequencies =16 are expected at each row of 
>> the PC table.
>> Your table has total 8 (instead of 16) frequencies at each row.
>>
>> The tones frequencies have to be located: 2 inside of each IF, one 
>> near left edge and another near right edge.
>> It is not a case for your PC table.
>>
>> Derive the left/right edges of each IF and compare them with the 
>> tones frequencies of your PC table.
>> You'll find the total disagreement.
>>
>> So PCCOR can not work with your current PC table.
>>
>> Leonia
>>