[evlatests] Fluke fallout

[Mark Claussen]

I looked at two data sets observed on January 12.  One was
at X, standard continuum (AO242, observed in dynamic time,
day 565, 1100 - 1200 LST), and AH979, at K, line, but 2AB, so
IF B is in the data set (observed 1500 - 1900 LST, day 565).

Both data sets look fairly clean, and I don't see any evidence
of the "fluke" (or perhaps L17, which was swapped out yesterday
--- Jan 26) problem.  Note that AH979 was observing when the
reconfiguration to BnA began.

The only other observing program before AL730 began on Jan 14
(MST) was AG815, observed day 566, LST 0230 - 0830.  This 
program was a Greenhill observation at Q band, spectral line,
with about a zillion freq ids :)  and I don't plan to look at it unless
forced to (I do think it has IF B in the data).   Of course there was
other data taken during the double maintenance day Jan 13/14
which might be useful to examine.

Mark


On Tuesday 27 January 2009 08:13, Vivek Dhawan wrote:
> 
> Continuing the saga of the bypassed EDFAs and project AL730:
> 
> As recent emails indicate, most of the doom & gloom I saw in the data
> on the weekend was dispelled on Monday.
> 
> Revnell fixed up some of the DTS systems. Some antennas were still
> showing variable amplitudes at the 2-5% level on Sunday evening but seem
> to have improved by Monday noon, for reasons no one would fess up to.
> 
> The Fluke on IF B was blamed for much of the bad data that I was using
> as the touchstone, i.e. VLA-EVLA data IF B was bad. This is also fixed.
> 
> To see how much of the backlog was corrupted by the Fluke phase noise,
> I checked data from AL730 which has accumulated for some days.
> 
> Fluke IF B was bad on the weekend, Jan 24-25 thru about noon Jan 26.
> 
> For the 6 days before that, the Fluke looks good.
> 
> For Jan 15 and 16 (UT) the data in IF B D are mostly flagged out by the
> online system, so it seems to know something is amiss, but I dont know
> if the Fluke is the cause of the flags.
> 
> Mark Claussen is looking at even earlier data, and might see the start
> of the problem. I will now load Jan 15 with the flags off and see if the
> Fluke really is the problem.
> 
> 
> Vivek.
> 
> p.s. AL730 used 2 subarrays and a frequency setup that makes them
> minimally affected by the Fluke problem. In my opinion there is no
> need to repeat any of those observations.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> evlatests mailing list
> evlatests at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests
> 
>