29 Jul, Oncley Since part of the intercomparison ends today, I shot boom angles this morning for site 8 using the datascope, set for 15.0deg E declination, thus these should be true. I estimate the error as +/-0.2 deg. UW 4.7 182.0 KD 1.7 173.3 KD 4.7 170.0 CSID 4.7 182.6 CSIHK 4.7 182.5 CSICH 4.7 133.9 GillHS 4.7 110.7 Prop1.7 182.9 Prop2.7 181.9 Prop4.7 181.1 Prop6.7 181.0 Prop8.7 181.9 Prop10.7 181.1 18 Aug, Semmer I spent the last 2 days shooting boom anlges with the theodolite. However, the sun_angle program for all was set to the year 1900 and thus could have been off by ~0.5 degree. station height (m) angle (degree min sec) PAM 1 4.7 3 35 55 2 4.7 6 18 25 3 4.7 359 22 20 [fallow field location] 4 4.7 0 42 15 5 4.7 3 09 30 6 4.7 0 46 30 SITE 7 (East to West) CSAT 4.7 357 11 48 (Tomas) CSAT 2.7 344 04 25 (Heping) CSAT 8.7 355 06 10 (Heping) ATIK 4.7 359 08 08 (NCAR) KJ 2.7 339 26 45 (Dutch) KJ 1.7 340 32 25 (Dutch) METEK 4.7 334 16 00 (Tomas) axis was NW -> SE (bottom -> top) RMYoung 4.7 333 37 00 (Tomas) axis was NW -> SE (top -> bottom) SITE 8 UW 4.7 359 53 27 (NCAR) prop 10.7 0 51 20 (NCAR) prop 8.7 1 34 17 (NCAR) prop 6.7 0 48 15 (NCAR) prop 4.7 0 20 45 (NCAR) prop 2.7 0 45 45 (NCAR) prop 1.7 2 07 55 (NCAR) SITE 9 UW 4.7 1 21 15 (NCAR) CSAT 6.7 322 57 35 (Roland) CSAT 2.7 323 00 00 (Roland) METEK 6.7 145 29 05 (Roland) axis was NW -> SE (bottom -> top) GILL-R2 2.7 359 47 20 (Roalnd) axis was N -> S (bottom -> top) GILL-HS 6.7 295 06 35 (Roland) axis was MW -> SE (top -> bottom) CSAT 2.7 321 46 05 (Roland) Kearny CSAT 4.7 345 54 10 vane ?.? 2 33 40 axis along boom, N -> S 13 Aug, Oncley Attached are tilt files for the 9 stations as of the last month. s9 is pretty bad, even when only running the previous month. The PAM graphs appear to have more scatter than the ASTERs, but that is due to the ASTERs having a larger lean angle. All computed with rm.azm=20 (not default value of 45) stn lean az r2 woff 1 0.7 -1 3 -2 2 0.9 57 1 -1 3 1.3 138 2 -2 4 1.0 30 2 -1 5 0.9 37 1 -1 6 0.6 30 2 -1 7 2.5 4.6 1 -1 8 2.2 16 1 0 9 0.9 1 2 set to -0.05 (wmax=0.3) All of these look pretty reasonable to me. 13 Aug, Oncley Using rserial and eve_talk, the following serial numbers were found: stn1 nuw6 stn2 980504 stn3 nuw4 stn4 980303 stn5 980302 stn6 980505 daisy(7) 980202 cosmos(8) nuw7 marigold(9) nuw5 (just set) spare (not working well) nuw3 13 Aug, Oncley Here is a summary of sonic stuff as I remember it: - all sonics came here set for 10 sps; the aster ones were upped to 20 sps in the middle of the IC period. (We tried to set s1 to 10 sps at the same time, but it appeared that eve couldn't handle this rate.) - all atis came here set for 20% shadow correction; all but s6 were changed to 0% in the middle of the IC period. s6 was changed today (couldn't be done through eve) - s8 was set up first, with nuw7 and ati980202. However, nuw5 didn't work when setting up s7, so ati980202 was moved there. - nuw5 died on the bench in the trailer and eventually fixed by ATI/Semmer - nuw3 had weird data (at s9) since marigold's cooler failure ~7/23, and was replaced by nuw5 when it returned yesterday. - nuw5 was installed at s9 with bad internal parameters which were just fixed today. Thus, we probably don't have any good s9 flux data between 7/26 and now. (see plot)