|
Size: 1004
Comment:
|
Size: 1650
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| [[Nika2Run74|Back to the NIKA2 Run 74 main page]] <<BR>> | |
| Line 3: | Line 2: |
| <<TableOfContents(3)>> | = PIIC processing of run 74 beam maps (taken on 2025/07/13) = |
| Line 5: | Line 4: |
| = NIKA2 Re-Commissioning (3rd. attempt) = | Three beam maps were taken on 2025/07/13, i.e. scans || Scan || Focus || Notes || || 20250713s45 || Ar2 || || || 20250713s47 || Ar1 || weird behavious in the IDL reduction by NP on 2025/07/15 || || 20250713s78 || Ar1 || although it's meant to be used for Ar3|| |
| Line 7: | Line 10: |
| NIKA2 run 74, Cryo run 86 == Infos about the PIIC DAFs for the PIIC monitor == According to the results obtained from processing data of June 2025 NIKA2 re-commissioning given [[https://publicwiki.iram.es/Run73processing|here]], DAFs RPP scheme used during run 73 is kept. Therefore, two different sets of DAFs for Ar1+3 and for Ar2 are used. In practice: * Ar2 * open a terminal, go to the QL directory * gagpiic * export MOPSIC_DAFS=/local/users/flexible/reduce/dafs_bck/dafs_local_tmp_run73_ar2 * start the Ar2 monitor (pf) * repeat in another terminal for the Ar2 monitor(m) * Ar1 and Ar3 * open a new terminal, go to the QL directory * gagpiic * echo $MOPSIC_DAFS -> check that it says /sw/gildas/mopsic/dafs * if not, then set it to that directory * proceed normally with the Ar1 and Ar3 monitors == July 12th, 2025 == |
On 2025/07/17 SB processed the three beam maps using PIIC. Below here I copy the usual FOV plots, that show the quality of the beam maps. They are self-explanatory (cfr also the previous re-commissioning runs for more information). It is worth to point out few features, though: * also in this re-commissioning session, the Ar3 beam maps are bad. My feeling is that the main culprit is the focus offset of Ar3 with respect to Ar1 and Ar2. * there is a focus difference of ~0.3 mm between Ar2 and Ar1, a difference of ~0.3 mm between Ar1 and Ar3, and therefore a difference of ~0.6 mm between Ar2 and Ar3. These values are preliminary and come from the quick focus analysis carried out during the observing session. Note that during the first re-commissioning (run 72), Ar1 and Ar3 seemd to have a similar focus offset, but things changed after re-opnening. The idea is that this is not a real hardware change, but rather due to the fact that in run 72 the Box C was missing. In my opinion this is not so obvious, though. * the consequences of these focus offsets between the three arrays are that: focusing on Ar2, Ar3 is completely out of focus and not usable; fcusing on Ar1, Ar3 is still out of focus (but less dramatically) and only marginally usable. * there have been issues with focusing at 1.2 mm |
PIIC processing of run 74 beam maps (taken on 2025/07/13)
Three beam maps were taken on 2025/07/13, i.e. scans
Scan |
Focus |
Notes |
20250713s45 |
Ar2 |
|
20250713s47 |
Ar1 |
weird behavious in the IDL reduction by NP on 2025/07/15 |
20250713s78 |
Ar1 |
although it's meant to be used for Ar3 |
On 2025/07/17 SB processed the three beam maps using PIIC. Below here I copy the usual FOV plots, that show the quality of the beam maps. They are self-explanatory (cfr also the previous re-commissioning runs for more information). It is worth to point out few features, though:
- also in this re-commissioning session, the Ar3 beam maps are bad. My feeling is that the main culprit is the focus offset of Ar3 with respect to Ar1 and Ar2.
- there is a focus difference of ~0.3 mm between Ar2 and Ar1, a difference of ~0.3 mm between Ar1 and Ar3, and therefore a difference of ~0.6 mm between Ar2 and Ar3. These values are preliminary and come from the quick focus analysis carried out during the observing session. Note that during the first re-commissioning (run 72), Ar1 and Ar3 seemd to have a similar focus offset, but things changed after re-opnening. The idea is that this is not a real hardware change, but rather due to the fact that in run 72 the Box C was missing. In my opinion this is not so obvious, though.
- the consequences of these focus offsets between the three arrays are that: focusing on Ar2, Ar3 is completely out of focus and not usable; fcusing on Ar1, Ar3 is still out of focus (but less dramatically) and only marginally usable.
- there have been issues with focusing at 1.2 mm