[Isocops] Tests

[Nathan Schwadron]

OK, thanks

On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Geoffrey B. Crew wrote:

> 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
>>>> 		
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>