[mmaimcal]Re: configurations

[David Woody]

Al
I have my Mathcad program running on my desk top
computer.  So, if I get the pad coordinates for the
various configurations, including which pads are to
be used for each configuration, I can produce
a uniform set of plots of radial UV density plots, PSF sidelobe
statistics, and peak sidelobe vs. radius like the ones
that are in ALMA memo 390.  This will treat all of the
arrays consistently and may make comparisons easier.
I would like to do this over the weekend if possible.
David
****************************************
| David Woody
| Assistant Director of Instrumentation
| Owens Valley Radio Observatory
| P.O. Box 968, 100 Leighton Lane
| Big Pine, CA 93513, USA
| Phone 760-938-2075ext111, FAX 760-938-2075
|dwoody at caltech.edu
****************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Wootten" <awootten at NRAO.EDU>
To: "Bryan Butler" <bbutler at NRAO.EDU>
Cc: "Al Wootten" <awootten at NRAO.EDU>; "David Woody"
<dwoody at ovro.caltech.edu>; <mmaimcal at NRAO.EDU>;
<mwright at astron.berkeley.edu>; <dbock at astron.berkeley.edu>;
<pgray at NRAO.EDU>; <dsramek at NRAO.EDU>; <bglenden at NRAO.EDU>;
<jkingsle at NRAO.EDU>; <ghtan at eso.org>; <guillote at iram.fr>;
<sradford at NRAO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [mmaimcal]Re: configurations


> Hi Bryan, others
>
> I think that the suggestions Mel had were examples of some of the
> items in your list.  I forwarded this to the configuration presenters
> as an indication of the discussion topics for each array.  I'd like
> to see all these points addressed, so providing a list to each presenter
> seems the best way to assure ourselves that there will be answers
> at the review.
>
> Clear skies,
> Al
> Bryan Butler writes:
>  >
>  >
>  > all,
>  >
>  > i'm a bit hesitant to make an 'official' scorecard.  it makes it look
>  > like there is a real _competition_ between particular designs.  is this
>  > what we want to promote?  i would also think that the panel members
would
>  > want to come up with their own versions, rather than having one
dictated
>  > to them...
>  >
>  > if forced to do so, however, i would make a scorecard more thusly:
>  >
>  > 1 - science
>  >
>  >    does it meet the PDR recommendations on resolution, UV sampling,
etc?
>  >    (compact array should maximize brightness sensitivity; intermediates
>  >    should have gaussian uv density; extended should have maximum
resolution
>  >    without forcing any fiber runs > 25 km)
>  >
>  >    beam metrics
>  >
>  >    uv metrics
>  >
>  >    simulation results
>  >
>  > 2 - cost
>  >
>  >    number of pads minimized (this is really a bit of a red herring
though,
>  >    until we have better cost estimates for foundations as a function of
>  >    location on the site)
>  >
>  >    is there apparent difficulty getting to some locations (implying
longer
>  >    roads and cable runs)?
>  >
>  > 3 - operations
>  >
>  >    is one design easier to operate and maintain than another?
>  >
>  > 4 - flexibility & robustness
>  >
>  >    how robust is the overall design philosophy to changes?
>  >
>  >    how robust are particular designs to antennas being dead or pads
being
>  >    unusable?
>  >
>  >    is the configuration style flexible ('fixed' vs. 'flowing' types)?
>  >
>  >    are the 'hybrids' reasonable - including N-S elongation, and the
>  >    hybrid between the largest intermediate and the extended
configuration?
>  >
>  >    what about 'multi-configuration' (which loses some of its meaning in
>  >    the 'flowing' antenna move style) capability?
>  >
>  >
>  > you can argue about the contents of each of the 4 categories, but i'm
>  > pretty sure that the above 4 are the ones that really need to be
compared
>  > to each other when deciding on the configuration, both in design
philosophy
>  > and in the particular design.  this is nothing new, others have been
pointing
>  > all of this out for years - i have just put it into the 'scorecard'
>  > formalism...
>  >
>  >
>  > -bryan
>  >
>
>
>
>
>