Please note - br100df and dh are reobservations of br100dd, which was correlated incorrectly. ------------------------ From reid@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jul 12 10:34:29 2006 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:34:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Reid To: "VLBI Observers (Aspen only)" Subject: Re: br100dd Lisa, I forgot to specify the optimum observing dates for the makeup observations for BR100D. Please aim for observing within -1 week to + 2 weeks of the following dates: BR100DF 2006 Oct 19 BR100DH 2007 Apr 15 Note that after BR100DF, I would like to skip the experiment name "BR100DG" and use "BR100DH", as that would keep the original spacing of 3 months between epochs. Is that OK? Mark ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Reid Phone: 617-495-7470 Harvard-Smithsonian CfA Fax : 617-495-7345 60 Garden Street Email: reid@cfa.harvard.edu Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Web : cfa-www.harvard.edu/~reid ------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, VLBI Observers (Aspen only) wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Peggy has approved this, so yes, we will add two > epochs to br100d*. Will you be sending new key files > or shall we reuse the br100dd file for both of them? > > cheers, > > Lisa > > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Mark Reid wrote: > > > > > So, if we simply drop epoch D, we lose 60% in our parallax > > accuracy. Adding one more epoch ("F") helps, but still > > leaves us with a 30% loss in accuracy. We can really only > > recover the full accuracy by adding two epochs ("F & H"). > > Is that possible? > > > > Mark > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Mark J. Reid Phone: 617-495-7470 > > Harvard-Smithsonian CfA Fax : 617-495-7345 > > 60 Garden Street Email: reid@cfa.harvard.edu > > Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Web : cfa-www.harvard.edu/~reid > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, VLBI Observers (Aspen only) wrote: > > > >> > >> Dear Mark and Ye, > >> > >> It appears the lack of the third pass in br100dd was > >> an oversight on our part. All other epochs of br100d* > >> had three correlation passes, so I think they were done > >> correctly. Please accept my apology on behalf of the > >> analysts. We should have caught this before releasing > >> the project. Obviously it is too late to correlate it > >> now. Would a reobservation be helpful? > >> > >> Humble apologies, > >> > >> Lisa Foley > >> NRAO Data Analyst >