[Isocops] Tests
Nathan Schwadron
nschwadron at mac.com
Wed Jun 9 14:52:42 EDT 2010
Ooops .. Ignore my last message .. here is the correct one (now with real feeling)
2010-07-01T13:00:00.000Z||CEU_MODE HVENG
2010-07-01T13:01:00.000Z||CEU_LO_SCIENCE_MODE OXYGEN
2010-07-01T13:02:00.000Z||CEU_LO_SCI_PLAN 3,1,3,1
2010-07-01T13:04:00.000Z||CEU_MODE HVSCI
2010-07-02T01:27:00.000Z||CEU_MODE HVENG
2010-07-02T01:28:00.000Z||CEU_LO_SCIENCE_MODE NORMAL
2010-07-02T01:30:00.000Z||CEU_MODE HVSCI
Does everyone agree with this one?
On Jun 9, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Nathan Schwadron wrote:
> OK, so once more with feeling ..
>
> 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
> 2010-07-02T01:28:20.000Z||CEU_MODE HVENG
> 2010-07-02T01:29:40.000Z||CEU_LO_SCIENCE_MODE NORMAL
> 2010-07-02T01:30:00.000Z||CEU_MODE HVSCI
>
> Any objections before I send this tonight to the Lo team?
>
> -N
>
> On Jun 9, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Dunn, Greg wrote:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Nathan Schwadron [mailto:nschwadron at mac.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 11:54 AM
>>> To: Reno, Michelle
>>> Cc: Greg Dunn; David Heirtzler; isoc cops; Mark Tapley; Chelle Reno
>>> Subject: Re: [Isocops] Tests
>>>
>>> What are the default values for the Lo Science Plan?
>>
>> 1,7,2,1
>> No need to set back to defaults, though.
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Can you put more time between the "CEU_MODE HVENG" and the
>> CEU_LO_SCIENCE_MODE commands (two places)? The SCIENCE_MODE
>> command will be rejected if the CEU_MODE hasn't transitioned
>> to HVENG; and the CEU_MODE changes on spin boundaries, so you
>> should wait at least one spin time before issuing the
>> SCIENCE_MODE command. 30 seconds should be a good delay.
>>
>> -- Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
> 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/dd2b69f1/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Isocops
mailing list