RE: ARNE Mark IV

[Tom Droege <tdroege@veriomail.com>]

Mike,

I continue to take test data.  Tonight I am running the same program as 
Arne except that I have the Dec. moves patched out as the motor is not 
working and even if it was, I cannot look over very much sky.

This program produces 8 images while following the sky, then cogs back and 
produces another 8 images.  Since I am looking near the equator, I should 
get the Landolt stars.

But note, that Arne's data will look much better than mine.

I have a few problems to make TOM work properly, I just discovered that I 
have worn out the RA drive nut by running it against the stops too often, 
but soon I will be able to give you lots of data with the same format as 
Arne.

Tom

At 10:26 PM 9/12/00 -0400, you wrote:
>When you publish some of the images could you make them ones which include
>the Landolt standards?  That would help us ensure that all the processing
>pipelines produce results consistent not only with each other but consistent
>with the Landolt standards too.
>
>I have started enhancing the Star pipeline to handle Mark IV images and any
>data I can get would be helpful.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mike G.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-tass@listserv.wwa.com [mailto:owner-tass@listserv.wwa.com]On
>Behalf Of aah@nofs.navy.mil
>Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 11:57 PM
>To: tass@listserv.wwa.com
>Subject: ARNE Mark IV
>
>
>The Mark IV is taking data, though I am slowly working
>through a pile of hardware and software issues (plus it
>is full moon to boot).  As an example, I've posted a file:
>ftp://ftp.nofs.navy.mil/pub/outgoing/aah/tass/sa92v.gif
>which is the difference between instrumental measures
>and true V measures for the Landolt standard region SA92,
>taken around moonset on 000910 with a 152 second exposure.
>The mean value of the difference (~2.5mags or so) is irrelevant;
>it is the scatter that is important.  Note that to about
>V=13 the points scatter around a pretty constant value,
>with some of the scatter due to Poisson noise and some
>due to the slight offset of the TASS V filter from the
>standard filter bandpass (the stars range 0.422 < (V-I) < 1.836,
>and I haven't done any transformation yet).
>Still, the RMS error is just a couple of percent.
>However, after V=13 you see a definite systematic error
>that looks like a magnitude effect.  I'll have to look
>at that in more detail.
>   The system is taking ~2GB per night of 1600 square degrees
>of sky during photometric conditions.  I'll post some of
>the images later in the week for those who want to try some
>processing.  My analysis suffers greatly from an overload
>of other duties.
>Arne