Entry | Date | Title | Site | Author | #Graphics |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

10 | Wed 03-Jun-1992 | FAST T at MARIGOLD DOWN: | none | srs | |

24 | Fri 05-Jun-1992 | 175m FAST T DOWN: | none | srs | |

29 | Sat 06-Jun-1992 | FAST T at 100M TOWER WORKING? | none | srs | |

30 | Sat 06-Jun-1992 | UPDATE TO FAST T @ 175m: | none | srs | |

33 | Sat 06-Jun-1992 | FAST T CALS: | none | srs | |

160 | Tue 30-Jun-1992 | Fast T cals: | none | twh | |

162 | Fri 31-Jul-1992 | Fast T calibration parameters | none | gdm |

- 10: FASTT , Site none, Wed 03-Jun-1992 20:32:45 GMT,
**FAST T at MARIGOLD DOWN:** FAST T at MARIGOLD DOWN: Allen is working on the fast T sensor at marigold. The electronics box is not working correctly.

- 24: FASTT , Site none, Fri 05-Jun-1992 23:13:03 GMT,
**175m FAST T DOWN:** 175m FAST T DOWN: The fast T at 175m is down. Since replacing the element, the sensor has been questionable since it was fixed. Allen is presently working on the sensor.

- 29: FASTT , Site none, Sat 06-Jun-1992 03:03:56 GMT,
**FAST T at 100M TOWER WORKING?** FAST T at 100M TOWER WORKING? Allen found the analog channel for the fast T was bad. This sensor has been switched to channel 101 on marigold. At the time of typing this comment, it appears to have a sign error. This will be checked tomorrow.

- 30: FASTT , Site none, Sat 06-Jun-1992 03:38:59 GMT,
**UPDATE TO FAST T @ 175m:** UPDATE TO FAST T @ 175m: The problem with the fast T at marigold was due to somebody soldering the jumper #4 closed on channel 0. This caused a .5 gain factor. When Allen tryed the fast T on channel 1 the same jumper had been solder closed; however, jumper #5 was installed giving an additional gain of 2 with a -5 volt offset. This resulted in a voltage looking correct with a sign change. The board was fixed and the fast T was moved back to channel 0. The data collected since the being of ops2 should be ignored upto this time, 3:30Z.

- 33: FASTT , Site none, Sat 06-Jun-1992 19:37:00 GMT,
**FAST T CALS:** FAST T CALS: Below are the results of checks on the fast T settings. The original data set collected is in directory /home/aster/projects/FOOTPRINT92/fast_cals. site abs error span 50m .03 5.024 +- .01 100m .27 5.217 +- .01 175m -.61 5.253 +- .01 250m -.33 5.068 +- .03

- 160: FASTT , Site none, Tue 30-Jun-1992 21:50:57 GMT,
**Fast T cals:** Fast T cals: Recorded fast T cals yesterday afternoon and this morning, placing them in $ASTER/projects/FOOTPRINT92/fast_cals/files where files is t.50.181, t.100.181, t.175.182, and t.250.182. Each of these files contains ~10 samples from cshow, alternating between operate and calibrate (operate + 5 degrees).

- 162: FASTT , Site none, Fri 31-Jul-1992 17:58:05 GMT,
**Fast T calibration parameters** Computed fast t calibration parameters from data files on directory $ASTER/projects/FOOTPRINT92/fast_cals. Files: t.50.6-6-92 t.50.181 jd 181 = 6-29-92 t.100.6-6-92 t.100.181 t.175.6-6.92 t.175.182 t.250.6-6-92 t.250.182 This procedure is the same as used by Tom Horst at Stormfest92, see logbook entry for FASTT calibrations. 1. Edited those files to remove transient points near voltage jumps. The edited files have a ".ed" suffix. 2. Computed the mean and sd of the voltage jumps, using 10 points on either side of the jumps. This was done with the Splus function fun.fastT.cal (source: $ASTER/apps/sfun/xtra/fastT.cal.S) Results Parameters for prep.config linear cal function: 50m: .001520 degC / count 100m: .001463 degC / count 175m: .001457 degC / count 250m: .001510 degC / count Here is the output from the fun.fastT.cal computations: 50m Tower > fun.fastT.cal(scan("t.50.6-6-92.ed"),10) $dT: [1] -5.030545 5.018509 -5.030682 5.021973 -5.031809 5.022482 -5.034564 [8] 5.025282 -5.036000 5.028627 $avg: [1] 5.028047 $sd: [1] 0.005772322 > fun.fastT.cal(scan("t.50.181.ed"),10) $dT: [1] -5.010909 5.032727 -5.010000 5.018182 -5.013636 5.026364 -5.003636 [8] 5.040000 -4.950909 $avg: [1] 5.011818 $sd: [1] 0.02566069 These 2 averages at 50m differ by less than .35% Average of 50m calibrations (10 * 5.028 + 9 * 5.0118) /19 = 5.02036 +- .02 So the prep.config linear calibration coefficient should be: 5degC / 5.02036 V * (100 V / 65534 counts) = 1.520e-3 degC / count 100m Tower > fun.fastT.cal(scan("t.100.6-6-92.ed"),10) $dT: [1] -5.218927 5.210609 -5.219518 5.212982 -5.230600 5.219209 -5.227282 [8] 5.222809 -5.228364 5.218927 $avg: [1] 5.220923 $sd: [1] 0.006457685 > fun.fastT.cal(scan("t.100.181.ed"),10) $dT: [1] -5.206364 5.199091 -5.215455 5.185455 -5.216364 5.200909 -5.220000 [8] 5.200909 -5.219091 5.209091 $avg: [1] 5.207273 $sd: [1] 0.0109511 These 2 averages at 100m differ by less than .27% Average of 100m calibrations: 5.2141 +- .011 prep.config linear calibration coefficient: 5degC / 5.2141 V * (100 V / 65534 counts) = 1.463e-3 degC / count 175m Tower > fun.fastT.cal(scan("t.175.6-6-92.ed"),10) $dT: [1] -5.261791 5.248927 -5.265845 5.255427 -5.268464 5.257345 -5.269409 [8] 5.259018 -5.270827 5.262209 $avg: [1] 5.261926 $sd: [1] 0.006944764 > fun.fastT.cal(scan("t.175.182.ed"),10) $dT: [1] -5.185455 5.190000 -5.219091 5.198182 -5.224545 5.206364 -5.215455 [8] 5.213636 -5.220909 $avg: [1] 5.208182 $sd: [1] 0.01406155 These 2 averages at 175m differ by less than 1.1% Average of 175m calibrations: 5.23648 +- .03 prep.config linear calibration coefficient: 5degC / 5.23647 V * (100 V / 65534 counts) = 1.457e-3 degC / count 250m Tower > fun.fastT.cal(scan("t.250.6-6-92.ed"),10) $dT: [1] -5.066073 5.048336 -5.099227 5.049009 -5.095482 5.058845 -5.090609 [8] 5.057627 -5.105345 5.062455 $avg: [1] 5.073301 $sd: [1] 0.02193027 > fun.fastT.cal(scan("t.250.182.ed"),10) $dT: [1] -5.014545 5.020000 -5.039091 4.998182 -5.036364 5.020000 -5.041818 $avg: [1] 5.024286 $sd: [1] 0.01573467 These 2 averages at 250m differ by less than 1.1% Average of 250m calibrations: 5.0515 +- .03 prep.config linear calibration coefficient: 5degC / 5.0531 V * (100 V / 65534 counts) = 1.510e-3 degC / count Since the calibrations at 6/6/92 and 6/29/82 agreed to within 1.1% we will use the average of the two results for the entire experiment.