BH107E is a reobservation of BH107D which failed due to site problems and bad weather. Jason ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From horiuchi@jg.ejnet.ne.jp Thu Jul 17 19:30 MDT 2003 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:30:14 +0900 To: Jason Wurnig From: horiuchi@jg.ejnet.ne.jp Subject: Re: Observational problems with BH107D Cc: horiuchi@hotaka.mtk.nao.ac.jp Dear Jason, Thank you for the information. I saw the log and found that there have been so many problems. The worst one was hurricane Claudette! So I wish to cancel the correlation and have it place back into the dynamic queue for reobserving. Cheers, Shinji. ----- End Included Message ----- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 08:34:36 +0900 From: horiuchi@jg.ejnet.ne.jp To: "VLBI Observers (Aspen only)" Subject: Re: bh107c Dear Lisa, OK, the 0.1 second difference doesn't make any difference, so I should accept it. I am afraid that I made too complicated schedule. Is bh107e the run coming after bh107f? Cheers, Shinji. >Hello Shinji, > >Your project, bh107c, was recently observed but we had >difficulties with the correlation. We found an error >in the frequencies of the first two channels, they >were not the same. Mark Claussen identified the problem >and fixed the file. BH107C has been abandoned and will >be reobserved with the corrected file as BH107F. BH107E >has also been fixed. > >I'm also concerned about the data rate during the failed >correlation. In some instances, the operators noted some >30% of the data was lost. Perhaps the actual data rate in >this case is turning out to be higher than the predicted rate. >It would probably be best if we increased the averaging >time to at least 1.9 seconds, preferably 2.0, to reduce the >potential for lost data in your final dataset. Please let >us know if that is acceptable to you. > >best regards, > >Lisa Foley >NRAO Data Analyst