[mmaimcal]Re: configurations

[mel wright 456]

David,

	That would be nice. If the process is streamlined
perhaps you could also generate peak sidelobe vs. radius
for perturbed antenna positions
(nawk '{{print $1-1+2*rand(),$2-1+2*rand(),$3-2+4*rand()}}'
with say 10 m RMS offset, and for 56 antennas (4 failed,
a) random and b) adjacent)
as tests of robustness.

cheers,

Melvyn.

> From dwoody at ovro.caltech.edu Wed Jan 16 16:26:15 2002
> From: "David Woody" <dwoody at ovro.caltech.edu>
> To: "Al Wootten" <awootten at NRAO.EDU>, "Bryan Butler" <bbutler at NRAO.EDU>
> Cc: "Al Wootten" <awootten at NRAO.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>
> Subject: Re: [mmaimcal]Re: configurations
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:26:45 -0800
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> 
> 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
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>