|
20061218 report
HARP pointing over the past 3 nights (UT20061215-17)
HARP has been used recently during regular observing (although it is not
commissioned).
Three nights' data are displayed below
with no attempt to remove nightly collimation offsets:
Click for better view or here for .ps
The data separate into two (or 3 !?) blocks in several of the
sub-displays:
- the centre-left plot of dS-vs-Z shows
~-25arcseconds separating 15 measures
from the majority, while
- the Up-Down-Left-Right plot (lower left)
shows 3 groups:
- the aforementioned '15' loosely clustered on the right
- 4 measures at high-elevation, transiting in the north, and
- the bulk remainder
They are separated by about 25" and roughly occupy
the vertices of an approximately equilateral triangle.
The current deficiency of k-mirror-specific terms
in our pointing model was expected to lead to
either increased observed scatter in the pointing residuals
or (if we're lucky) to obvious sytematic error manifolds
in such plots. Distinct groupings such as this seems
to reflect a separate issue, possibly concerning the
selection of the k-mirror angle and the interpretation
thereafter by the pointing analysis software.
The '15' measures come in two time-contiguous groups;
measures 2 thru 9 on UT20061215, and measures 1-7 on UT20061217.
Log entries preceding entry #9 on UT15 suggest 'kmirror
engineering' (although 'exercising' may be a better description), but
there is no commentary in the logs to explain
the pointing jump on the 17th.
However, the k-mirror values themselves follow this pattern :
- - the bulk of these data were taken with -ve k-mirror values
- - the '15' are the only measures taken with +ve k-mirror values
- - three of the 'high northern four' have extreme -ve k-mirror values
( < -50 )
The '15' cover the same range of parallactic angle, Q, as the 'bulk',
whereas 3 of the '4' are at uniquely +ve Q>150.
Dividing the data into these groups for
analysis via TPOINT meets the same problems described
earlier; with a full
7-parameter optimization leaving residuals of ~(4",4")
in (dS,dZ) indicating, as before, and at the very least, the need
for other terms.
20061220
These data don't look nearly so potent when plotted in what I consider
a more raw form :
Click for better view or here for .ps
There are clear systematic errors (requiring adjustment to the
mode parameters), and possible large-ish residual scatter (requiring
new parameters, as previously speculated), but there's no sign here
of the groupings seen above. In particular: compare the middle sub-plot
here (del-vs-El) with what ought to be its mirror image above
(dZ-vs-Z, also the middle sub-plot).
|