[Isocops] Tests

[Nathan Schwadron]

What are the default values for the Lo Science Plan?

Here is the stf I have so far .. this is generated via the oxymode.pl script, which is now installed on ena.

2010-07-01T13:00:00.000Z||CEU_MODE            HVENG
2010-07-01T13:00:10.000Z||CEU_LO_SCIENCE_MODE           OXYGEN
2010-07-01T13:00:20.000Z||CEU_LO_SCI_PLAN            3,1,3,1
2010-07-01T13:01:40.000Z||CEU_MODE            HVSCI
2010-07-02T05:58:20.000Z||CEU_MODE            HVENG
2010-07-02T05:59:40.000Z||CEU_LO_SCIENCE_MODE           NORMAL
2010-07-02T06:00:00.000Z||CEU_MODE            HVSCI


On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Reno, Michelle wrote:

> No LO_SCIENCE_PLAN command is needed if the LO_SCIENCE MODE is normal.
>  
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Chelle Reno
> Austin Mission Consulting
> 106 E. 6th St. Ste. 939
> Austin, TX  78701
> (512) 704-3394 (o)
> (210) 478-7337 (c)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> From: Nathan Schwadron [mailto:nschwadron at mac.com]
> Sent: Wed 6/9/2010 11:25 AM
> To: Dunn, Greg
> Cc: Dunn, Greg; David Heirtzler; isoc cops; Mark Tapley; Chelle Reno
> Subject: Re: [Isocops] Tests
> 
> The STF needs to take us into the Oxygen mode and then out again.
> 
> When we go back to the normal science mode, I issue the command
> 
> timestamp || CEU_LO_SCIENCE_MODE NORMAL
> 
> I assume this renders CEU_LO_SCI_PLAN irrelevant. Or does that parameter also need to be reset?
> 
> -N
> 
> On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Dunn, Greg wrote:
> 
> >> I was going to set table 2 to 0 and the cadence to 0 so that
> >> we just use table 1.
> >
> > You can't set a cadence of 0.  If you want to keep the same table
> > throughout, then set the same table for both.  In that case, the
> > cadence doesn't really matter:
> >
> > timestamp || CEU_LO_SCI_PLAN  3, 1, 3, 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?
> >
> > Oops, I didn't read down far enough to see this question.
> >
> > I think you're right, I must have grabbed the '4' from the
> > table select instead of the '10' from the cadence in my
> > previous response.  Sorry about the confusion.
> >
> > -- Greg
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> -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
> >>>>           
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Please restrict discussions on this email list to non-ITAR sensitive topics.
> > ______________________________________________
> > Isocops mailing list
> > Isocops at lists.sr.unh.edu
> > http://lists.sr.unh.edu/mailman/listinfo/isocops
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sr.unh.edu/mailman/private/isocops/attachments/20100609/a9437e3e/attachment-0001.html