[evlatests] Alerts for T304 TPD levels - Follow up

[Jim Jackson]

For the record - I am in complete agreement with Chuck and Gene about 
the alarms. These will be a nuisance to the array operators and 
technicians. There has to be a better and more permanent way dealing with this.

Jim

At 10:36 AM 4/5/2011, Jim Jackson wrote:
>While we may be able to add alarms or some more intelligence in the
>T304 ALC routine, I think we will hit a limit of what can be dealt
>with using just the T304 power detectors to set levels.  For the
>bands with lots of  RFI, it seems like we really need to start
>considering setting the T304 attenuators based on results from the
>digitizers and/or various stages of the correlator.
>
>Jim
>
>At 09:28 AM 4/5/2011, Chuck Kutz wrote:
> >Somehow we are going to have to come to grips with working in a contiguous
> >RF environment.
> >
> >This solution has the possibility of generating a lot of write ups that
> >someone will have to spend time on.
> >The system as currently implemented, is "fooled" by spurious RF signals that
> >affect the level set which is based upon the total energy observed in a 1GHz
> >wide RF environment.
> >
> >There may be other ways to handle this. I have a couple of ideas. Anyone
> >interested?
> >
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: evlatests-bounces at nrao.edu [mailto:evlatests-bounces at nrao.edu] On
> >Behalf Of Keith Morris
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:12 AM
> >To: Steven Durand
> >Cc: evlatests at aoc.nrao.edu
> >Subject: Re: [evlatests] Alerts for T304 TPD levels
> >
> >There is certainly the possibility of false alarm, but the cost of such
> >an alarm is quite low.  The TPD monitor point message field reports the
> >ALC status-- target reached, attenuator out of range, etc.  The alert
> >would inform the operator that such a situation exists; there may or may
> >not be any action the operator can take.  But in the cases where the
> >attenuators failed to set up properly, the benefit of having a second
> >chance of dialing in proper levels may outweigh the inconvenience of
> >false alarms.
> >
> >
> >
> >Steven Durand wrote:
> > > Is there the possibility of many false alarms.  The x-band
> > > receivers still have very low output.  Also at the edges of each
> > > band some of the receivers have low output that can not be
> > > adjusted to the proper level.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob Long wrote:
> > >> I discovered several T304 attenuators set incorrectly (again) this
> > >> morning. I wonder if we should setup alert levels on the TPD monitor
> > >> points in order to warn operators of a potential ALC problem. If the
> > >> operators knew of the problem, they might have been able to take
> > >> corrective action.
> > >>
> > >> I spoke with Dave who informed me that they didn't even realize the
> > >> attenuators were set incorrectly because they saw no fringe problems.
> > >> This email is effectively a channel to open communication concerning
> > >> ideas/solutions to this problem!
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Rob Long
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> evlatests mailing list
> > >> evlatests at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> > >> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests
> > >
> >
> >--
> >Keith Morris
> >National Radio Astronomy Observatory
> >1003 Lopezville Rd.
> >Socorro, NM 87801
> >575-835-7060 (phone)
> >575-835-7027 (fax)
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >evlatests mailing list
> >evlatests at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> >http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >evlatests mailing list
> >evlatests at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> >http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>evlatests mailing list
>evlatests at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
>http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests