Engineering 2011JanFeb - Revision history

192.153.157.220: /* 2011 February 12: */

2011-02-13T09:38:49Z

2011 February 12:

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:38, 13 February 2011
Line 385:		Line 385:

	But the GDT estimate itself seems off, though. Dropping acc to 30 is possible, but with gain of -0.15 it became unstable after 5 minutes. 50 is better with -0.15.		But the GDT estimate itself seems off, though. Dropping acc to 30 is possible, but with gain of -0.15 it became unstable after 5 minutes. 50 is better with -0.15.

			The thresholds from S to SL to S are mostly ok. With their now default values I can go from search to lock on the relatively bad fringes produced by the delaylines.

			Coherent integration still has an oversight in the gdt expression, when we begin accumlating, the values become excessively small. We could add a n vectors of size NACCUMULATED[n] in charge of tracking the actual weight.

	Note: we need to do something about cosmic rays as they can perturb the cophasing.		Note: we need to do something about cosmic rays as they can perturb the cophasing.

			CONCLUSION OF THIS RUN: a lot of progress but a bit more testing to do on delaylines and on sky. Internal delays calibrated for the beam combos, except B6B1. RMG's GUI can now be used to help alignment. The wraparound was not implemented due to the large amount of potential changes involved: this will be worked on at the UM. The debias is still very simple, more could be done. The FT gui is more useful now with the delay and phase history, though refresh bugs, scaling, GUI space, will have to be optimized. We have a spooler which seems to work correctly but should be tweaked nonetheless. Tomorrow I will shut down things, make backups, and add more to the wiki.

192.153.157.220: /* 2011 February 12: */

2011-02-13T06:34:55Z

2011 February 12:

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 13 February 2011
Line 382:		Line 382:
	Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok		Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok

	GDT test parameters: ~~StoSL 200, acc 100~~, works ok to pull fringes in~~, but~~ the GDT estimate itself seems off, though. Dropping acc to 30 is possible, but with gain of -0.15 it became unstable after 5 minutes. 50 is better with -0.15.		GDT test parameters: 0.0/-0.1/5/1000/5/10/50, works ok to pull fringes in from border for GDT only (no cophasing).

			But the GDT estimate itself seems off, though. Dropping acc to 30 is possible, but with gain of -0.15 it became unstable after 5 minutes. 50 is better with -0.15.

	Note: we need to do something about cosmic rays as they can perturb the cophasing.		Note: we need to do something about cosmic rays as they can perturb the cophasing.

192.153.157.220: /* 2011 February 12: */

2011-02-13T06:28:38Z

2011 February 12:

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 13 February 2011
Line 382:		Line 382:
	Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok		Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok

	GDT test parameters: StoSL 200, acc 100, works ok to pull fringes in, but the GDT estimate itself seems off, though. Dropping acc to 30 is possible with gain of -0.~~1 but~~ became unstable after 5 minutes. 50 is better		GDT test parameters: StoSL 200, acc 100, works ok to pull fringes in, but the GDT estimate itself seems off, though. Dropping acc to 30 is possible, but with gain of -0.15 it became unstable after 5 minutes. 50 is better with -0.15.

			Note: we need to do something about cosmic rays as they can perturb the cophasing.

192.153.157.220: /* 2011 February 12: */

2011-02-13T06:24:55Z

2011 February 12:

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:24, 13 February 2011
Line 382:		Line 382:
	Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok		Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok

	GDT test parameters: StoSL 200, acc 100, works ok to pull fringes in, but the GDT estimate itself seems off, though. Dropping acc to 30 is possible with gain of -0.1		GDT test parameters: StoSL 200, acc 100, works ok to pull fringes in, but the GDT estimate itself seems off, though. Dropping acc to 30 is possible with gain of -0.1 but became unstable after 5 minutes. 50 is better

192.153.157.220: /* 2011 February 12: */

2011-02-13T06:17:07Z

2011 February 12:

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:17, 13 February 2011
Line 382:		Line 382:
	Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok		Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok

	GDT test parameters: StoSL ~~500~~, acc 100, works ok		GDT test parameters: StoSL 200, acc 100, works ok to pull fringes in, but the GDT estimate itself seems off, though. Dropping acc to 30 is possible with gain of -0.1

192.153.157.220: /* 2011 February 12: */

2011-02-13T06:03:11Z

2011 February 12:

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:03, 13 February 2011
Line 381:		Line 381:

	Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok		Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok

			GDT test parameters: StoSL 500, acc 100, works ok

192.153.157.220: /* 2011 February 11: */

2011-02-13T05:54:36Z

2011 February 11:

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:54, 13 February 2011
Line 372:		Line 372:

	Regression tests on phase ok, on gdt +/- 0.1 nm on fake fringes. I discovered issues with 6 beams in the code which led me to modify hard coded values in preparation for using 6 beams (the FT gui will have to be tested too). In general there is a bit of work to do for 6T, could be done partially at UM.		Regression tests on phase ok, on gdt +/- 0.1 nm on fake fringes. I discovered issues with 6 beams in the code which led me to modify hard coded values in preparation for using 6 beams (the FT gui will have to be tested too). In general there is a bit of work to do for 6T, could be done partially at UM.

			==2011 February 12:==

			FB tried to optimized the gains on the delayline fringes and took datasets to analyse at UM.
			We need to derive a procedure to optimize the gains once we have the fringes.

			Gains for cophasing: 0.5 unstable, 0.35 unstable, 0.2 bad, -0.1 and -0.2 ? Hard to tell. The phase graph is not so good. -0.35 unstable, -0.5 unstable

			Gains for gdt: -0.1 and -0.2 are ok

192.153.157.220: /* 2011 February 11: */

2011-02-12T05:36:35Z

2011 February 11:

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:36, 12 February 2011
Line 365:		Line 365:

	RMG added the shutter code and the alignment crosses to the alignment GUI.		RMG added the shutter code and the alignment crosses to the alignment GUI.

			FB:
			Refactored the flux/delay/phi history transmissions to use a function.

			Worked with Theo to install the latest version of the CHARA libraries, modified the makefiles and included files for the spooler and astropci.

			Regression tests on phase ok, on gdt +/- 0.1 nm on fake fringes. I discovered issues with 6 beams in the code which led me to modify hard coded values in preparation for using 6 beams (the FT gui will have to be tested too). In general there is a bit of work to do for 6T, could be done partially at UM.

192.153.157.220: /* 2011 February 10: */

2011-02-12T05:22:08Z

2011 February 10:

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:22, 12 February 2011
Line 361:		Line 361:
	OPD map does not look to great now, fake fringes of 0 delay and 0 phase are estimated with 0.1 delay and 0.1 phase.		OPD map does not look to great now, fake fringes of 0 delay and 0 phase are estimated with 0.1 delay and 0.1 phase.
	The wraparound code proved too difficult to be tested at the moment, so I chose to concentrate on cleaning up all the code I wrote since the beginning (spooler, logic, socket exchanges).		The wraparound code proved too difficult to be tested at the moment, so I chose to concentrate on cleaning up all the code I wrote since the beginning (spooler, logic, socket exchanges).

			==2011 February 11:==

			RMG added the shutter code and the alignment crosses to the alignment GUI.

192.153.157.220: /* 2011 February 9: */

2011-02-11T08:45:14Z

2011 February 9:

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:45, 11 February 2011
Line 355:		Line 355:

	champ00000.fits and champ00001.fits: typical DL fringes		champ00000.fits and champ00001.fits: typical DL fringes

			==2011 February 10:==

			Fixed bugs in the debias, ftgui, and exchanges between server and guis, such as flux/delay/phase as function of time.
			OPD map does not look to great now, fake fringes of 0 delay and 0 phase are estimated with 0.1 delay and 0.1 phase.
			The wraparound code proved too difficult to be tested at the moment, so I chose to concentrate on cleaning up all the code I wrote since the beginning (spooler, logic, socket exchanges).