[Isocops] Tests

[Geoffrey B. Crew]

I don't know that the software knows what to do with cadence 0.
There is no reason not to just reuse the same table id for the
2nd set.

-- 

		Geoff (gbc at space.mit.edu)

On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 11:33:17AM -0400, Nathan Schwadron wrote:
> I was going to set table 2 to 0 and the cadence to 0 so that we just use table 1. 
> 
> You didn't answer my question below .. I am confused about the cadence. 
> 
> 
> >> 
> >> I am confused here. I thought I wrote 10 cycles of table 3 
> >> and then 1 cycle of table 1. So that would be 
> >> 
> >> 64*10 = 640 spins of table 3 
> >> 64*1    = 64 spine of table 1
> >> 
> >> Is that right?
> 
> 
> -N
> 
> On Jun 9, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Dunn, Greg wrote:
> 
> >> Thanks for pointing out my mistake in the table .. it should 
> >> be table 3 .. righto!
> > 
> > Also for the second table do you intend to a cycle of Fall
> > Oxygen (table 1) as currently written, or should that be 
> > table 0 (normal sweep)?
> > 
> > -- Greg
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Nathan Schwadron [mailto:nschwadron at mac.com] 
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:18 AM
> >> To: Dunn, Greg
> >> Cc: Greg Dunn; Mark Tapley; Ken Fairchild; Chelle Reno; David 
> >> Heirtzler; Geoff Crew; isoc cops
> >> Subject: Re: Tests
> >> 
> >> Hi Greg
> >> 
> >> Thanks for pointing out my mistake in the table .. it should 
> >> be table 3 .. righto!
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 	
> >> 	
> >> 
> >> 		timestamp || CEU_LO_SCIENCE_MODE OXYGEN
> >> 		
> >> 
> >> 		timestamp || CEU_LO_SCI_PLAN  3, 10, 1, 1
> >> 		
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 		Would that indicate to use table 3 for
> >> 		
> >> 
> >> 		10 cycles and then table 1 (Fall Oxygen, ESA2) for 1
> >> 		
> >> 
> >> 		cycle. 
> >> 		
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 	Yes.
> >> 	
> >> 	
> >> 
> >> 		If so, does one cycle corresond to a typical 
> >> voltage step
> >> 		
> >> 
> >> 		(e.g., two spins)?
> >> 		
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 	As Geoff mentioned, a cycle corresponds to an Oxygen
> >> 	Histogram cycle.  So y! ou would able
> >> 	4, then 64 spins of table 1.
> >> 	
> >> 	
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I am confused here. I thought I wrote 10 cycles of table 3 
> >> and then 1 cycle of table 1. So that would be 
> >> 
> >> 64*10 = 640 spins of table 3 
> >> 64*1    = 64 spine of table 1
> >> 
> >> Is that right?
> >> 
> >> Nathan
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 		Cheers
> >> 		
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 		Nathan
> >> 		
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >