[Isocops] Tests
Nathan Schwadron
nschwadron at mac.com
Wed Jun 9 15:06:34 EDT 2010
Hi Chelle
Do the angles need to set via CAR, or can they be set by STF also?
-N
On Jun 9, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Reno, Michelle wrote:
> Looks good to me (have not looked at timing, just commands), except it does not set the start/stop bins for O-mode. I thought in the original email they mentioned the specific pointing angles they wanted to run in.
>
> David - you know how to set those commands correct?
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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 1:46 PM
> To: Dunn, Greg
> Cc: Reno, Michelle; Greg Dunn; Mark Tapley; David Heirtzler; isoc cops
> Subject: Re: [Isocops] Tests
>
> 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 &n! bsp; &nbs v>
> 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-----
>>> Fr! om: Natha adron 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
>>>
>>> 2010-07-01T13:00:20.000Z||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)? &nbs! p;The SCI 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)
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> _________________! _________ lockquote type="cite">
>>> 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
> 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
>> >
>> r 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 t! able 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
>> >! >
>> < ype="cite"> >> 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
>> >! ;>> ently 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
>> >>>> &n! bsp;
>> >>>>
>> >>>> cycle.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes.
>> >>>> ! ; >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If so, does one cycle corresond to a typical
>> >>>> voltage step
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>! >> nbsp; (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 >
>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 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
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Please restrict discussions on this email list to
>>> non-ITAR sensitive topics.
>>> > ______________________________________________
>>> > Isocops mailing list
>>> > Is >
>>> > 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/e398374b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Isocops
mailing list