2016 December - Revision history

Dgary at 11:12, 2 April 2017

2017-04-02T11:12:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:12, 2 April 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[http://www.ovsa.njit.edu/wiki/index.php/Expanded_Owens_Valley_Solar_Array#Observing_Log Back to Observing Log]

	== Dec 01 ==		== Dec 01 ==
	'''12:52 UT''' For the past several days we have done normal solar observing, with some interruptions due to testing new fast-correlator designs. The latter is showing improvement, but still some issues to resolve. During the solar observations, there have been a few small events. One M1-class flare occurred, but had almost no radio emission apparently. Activity seems to be subsiding now.		'''12:52 UT''' For the past several days we have done normal solar observing, with some interruptions due to testing new fast-correlator designs. The latter is showing improvement, but still some issues to resolve. During the solar observations, there have been a few small events. One M1-class flare occurred, but had almost no radio emission apparently. Activity seems to be subsiding now.

Nkuroda: /* Dec 22 */

2016-12-22T23:36:39Z

Dec 22

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 22 December 2016
Line 140:		Line 140:

	'''21:47 UT''' Kjell was working on ant 4, 6, and 8. Not sure if related but 4, 5, 6, 8's cRIOs stopped communicating shortly after that. Dr. Gary brought back 4, Gelu brought back 5, 6, and 8, but 5 kept falling back onto having negative values in TDIF. Gelu says that the problem seems to be coming from the time lag between cRIO and Stateframe. Was instructed by him to keep using sync command. After two sync commands ant5 cRIO came back by itself..but tracking is in orange color...		'''21:47 UT''' Kjell was working on ant 4, 6, and 8. Not sure if related but 4, 5, 6, 8's cRIOs stopped communicating shortly after that. Dr. Gary brought back 4, Gelu brought back 5, 6, and 8, but 5 kept falling back onto having negative values in TDIF. Gelu says that the problem seems to be coming from the time lag between cRIO and Stateframe. Was instructed by him to keep using sync command. After two sync commands ant5 cRIO came back by itself..but tracking is in orange color...

			'''23:30 UT''' Ant8 v-pol attenuation value is (31,31) but dBm value was fluctuating between 20 and 50. Also, ant6's v-pol attenuation was (8 29) and dBm value was "nan". Both came back to normal upon entering phasecal.

Nkuroda: /* Dec 22 */

2016-12-22T22:07:36Z

Dec 22

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:07, 22 December 2016
Line 136:		Line 136:

	'''11:40 UT''' I noticed that the LO1A tuning showed an error (overflow), so I rebooted it on this source change. Since the tuning was a single frequency, I am not sure if it was really not tuned correctly, but if so, earlier data will be no good, from whatever time the problem occurred since ~08:30UT (good before this time). Note that Ant13 is stable now. Oops. I just realized that I had thought we were using band14.fsq, so that is what I set it to for this source (11:40-12:50 UT). It should have been pcal.fsq.		'''11:40 UT''' I noticed that the LO1A tuning showed an error (overflow), so I rebooted it on this source change. Since the tuning was a single frequency, I am not sure if it was really not tuned correctly, but if so, earlier data will be no good, from whatever time the problem occurred since ~08:30UT (good before this time). Note that Ant13 is stable now. Oops. I just realized that I had thought we were using band14.fsq, so that is what I set it to for this source (11:40-12:50 UT). It should have been pcal.fsq.

			'''15:51 UT''' Solar observation resumed.

			'''21:47 UT''' Kjell was working on ant 4, 6, and 8. Not sure if related but 4, 5, 6, 8's cRIOs stopped communicating shortly after that. Dr. Gary brought back 4, Gelu brought back 5, 6, and 8, but 5 kept falling back onto having negative values in TDIF. Gelu says that the problem seems to be coming from the time lag between cRIO and Stateframe. Was instructed by him to keep using sync command. After two sync commands ant5 cRIO came back by itself..but tracking is in orange color...

Nkuroda: /* Dec 22 */

2016-12-22T17:48:44Z

Dec 22

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:48, 22 December 2016
Line 135:		Line 135:
	'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.		'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.

	'''11:40 UT''' I noticed that the LO1A tuning showed an error (overflow), so I rebooted it on this source change. Since the tuning was a single frequency, I am not sure if it was really not tuned correctly, but if so, earlier data will be no good, from whatever time the problem occurred. Note that Ant13 is stable now. Oops. I just realized that I had thought we were using band14.fsq, so that is what I set it to for this source (11:40-12:50 UT). It should have been pcal.fsq.		'''11:40 UT''' I noticed that the LO1A tuning showed an error (overflow), so I rebooted it on this source change. Since the tuning was a single frequency, I am not sure if it was really not tuned correctly, but if so, earlier data will be no good, from whatever time the problem occurred since ~08:30UT (good before this time). Note that Ant13 is stable now. Oops. I just realized that I had thought we were using band14.fsq, so that is what I set it to for this source (11:40-12:50 UT). It should have been pcal.fsq.

Dgary: /* Dec 22 */

2016-12-22T15:02:06Z

Dec 22

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 22 December 2016
Line 135:		Line 135:
	'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.		'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.

	'''11:40 UT''' I noticed that the LO1A tuning showed an error (overflow), so I rebooted it on this source change. Since the tuning was a single frequency, I am not sure if it was really not tuned correctly, but if so, earlier data will be no good, from whatever time the problem occurred. Note that Ant13 is stable now. Oops. I just realized that I had thought we were using band14.fsq, so that is what I set it to for this source. It should have been pcal.fsq.		'''11:40 UT''' I noticed that the LO1A tuning showed an error (overflow), so I rebooted it on this source change. Since the tuning was a single frequency, I am not sure if it was really not tuned correctly, but if so, earlier data will be no good, from whatever time the problem occurred. Note that Ant13 is stable now. Oops. I just realized that I had thought we were using band14.fsq, so that is what I set it to for this source (11:40-12:50 UT). It should have been pcal.fsq.

Dgary: /* Dec 22 */

2016-12-22T15:01:24Z

Dec 22

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:01, 22 December 2016
Line 135:		Line 135:
	'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.		'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.

	'''11:40 UT''' I noticed that the LO1A tuning showed an error (overflow), so I rebooted it on this source change. Since the tuning was a single frequency, I am not sure if it was really not tuned correctly, but if so, earlier data will be no good, from whatever time the problem occurred. Note that Ant13 is stable now.		'''11:40 UT''' I noticed that the LO1A tuning showed an error (overflow), so I rebooted it on this source change. Since the tuning was a single frequency, I am not sure if it was really not tuned correctly, but if so, earlier data will be no good, from whatever time the problem occurred. Note that Ant13 is stable now. Oops. I just realized that I had thought we were using band14.fsq, so that is what I set it to for this source. It should have been pcal.fsq.

Dgary: /* Dec 22 */

2016-12-22T11:45:07Z

Dec 22

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:45, 22 December 2016
Line 134:		Line 134:

	'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.		'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.

			'''11:40 UT''' I noticed that the LO1A tuning showed an error (overflow), so I rebooted it on this source change. Since the tuning was a single frequency, I am not sure if it was really not tuned correctly, but if so, earlier data will be no good, from whatever time the problem occurred. Note that Ant13 is stable now.

Nkuroda: /* Dec 22 */

2016-12-22T07:05:09Z

Dec 22

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:05, 22 December 2016
Line 131:		Line 131:
	'''03:43 UT''' Ant13 v-pol seems to be showing oscillation between ~2<dBm<~6, so adjusted. Does not seem to change much, so I will not try to adjust anymore unless it gets worse. (Figure 2)		'''03:43 UT''' Ant13 v-pol seems to be showing oscillation between ~2<dBm<~6, so adjusted. Does not seem to change much, so I will not try to adjust anymore unless it gets worse. (Figure 2)

	'''04:48 UT''' Ant13 v-pol was gone upon entering new source, so it was probably not the oscillation. Because of the attenuation change I made in the last source, now the dBm value fell below 1. Attenuation lessened from (0,6) to (0,4).		'''04:48 UT''' Ant13 v-pol fluctuation was gone upon entering new source, so it was probably not the oscillation. Because of the attenuation change I made in the last source, now the dBm value fell below 1. Attenuation lessened from (0,6) to (0,4).

	'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.		'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.

Nkuroda: /* Dec 22 */

2016-12-22T07:01:31Z

Dec 22

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:01, 22 December 2016
Line 129:		Line 129:
	'''03:38 UT''' Ant12 v-pol dBm value fell below 1, so attenuation was adjusted from (0,9) to (0,7).		'''03:38 UT''' Ant12 v-pol dBm value fell below 1, so attenuation was adjusted from (0,9) to (0,7).

	'''03:43 UT''' Ant13 v-pol seems to be showing oscillation between 2 < dBm < 6, so adjusted. Does not ~~see~~ to change much~~. Maybe just an interference? (It's been on since the beginning though. But~~ will not try to adjust anymore unless it gets worse.). (Figure 2)		'''03:43 UT''' Ant13 v-pol seems to be showing oscillation between ~2<dBm<~6, so adjusted. Does not seem to change much, so I will not try to adjust anymore unless it gets worse. (Figure 2)

	'''04:48 UT''' Ant13 v-pol was gone upon entering new source, so it was probably not the oscillation. Because of the attenuation change I made in the last source, now the dBm value fell below 1. Attenuation lessened from (0,6) to (0,4).		'''04:48 UT''' Ant13 v-pol was gone upon entering new source, so it was probably not the oscillation. Because of the attenuation change I made in the last source, now the dBm value fell below 1. Attenuation lessened from (0,6) to (0,4).

			'''06:48 UT''' Ant13 dBm values for both h- and v-pol are unstable, ~2<dBm<~8 and ~4<dBn<~8, respectively. But the change every second seems to be random, not 2dB, which would be the case for attenuation imbalance between polarizations. Leaving it as is.

Nkuroda: /* Dec 22 */

2016-12-22T04:51:25Z

Dec 22

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:51, 22 December 2016
Line 131:		Line 131:
	'''03:43 UT''' Ant13 v-pol seems to be showing oscillation between 2 < dBm < 6, so adjusted. Does not see to change much. Maybe just an interference? (It's been on since the beginning though. But will not try to adjust anymore unless it gets worse.). (Figure 2)		'''03:43 UT''' Ant13 v-pol seems to be showing oscillation between 2 < dBm < 6, so adjusted. Does not see to change much. Maybe just an interference? (It's been on since the beginning though. But will not try to adjust anymore unless it gets worse.). (Figure 2)

	'''04:48 UT''' Ant13 v-pol was probably not the oscillation. Because of the attenuation change I made, now the dBm value fell below 1. Attenuation lessened from (0,6) to (0,4).		'''04:48 UT''' Ant13 v-pol was gone upon entering new source, so it was probably not the oscillation. Because of the attenuation change I made in the last source, now the dBm value fell below 1. Attenuation lessened from (0,6) to (0,4).