RE: The promised format

[Tom Droege <tdroege@veriomail.com>]

I have looked and looked, and I cannot reconcile the format that Mike shows 
below with what I think I am writing.  It is clear to me that the image 
area is OK.  But the pre-scan and post-scan are not what I think I am 
writing.

I see no way out but to proceed along the path previously outlined.  I 
would hope that a couple of you will follow the process and look over 
shoulder.  It is no doubt something really dumb.  It is beyond the 
instrumentation that I have to actually look at the signals.  Just too many 
clocks go by to trap them in a storage scope.  OK, with a long enough 
project and enough special proms burnt to trigger the storage, I could map 
them all.  It would be a big project.

Since I do not believe that there is anything wrong with the images, I 
think we can go ahead.  But I will write up the details, and some of you 
can help me look to see what is wrong.

Tom Droege

At 08:24 AM 12/7/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I have looked at the images and can give some clues about where the problem
>may lie and where the imaging pixels are.  I analyzed the first 7 columns
>and last 6 columns of image H3R1836.529.  Here are the results:
>
>Column  Median  Noise
>    0            7860            95.8
>    1            6375              1.8
>    2            7271              7.1
>    3            6374              2.1
>    4            7424            32.2
>    5            6375              2.1
>    6            10466           55.9
>2037            10328           84.5
>2038            7675            69.3
>2039            11109           128.7
>2040            7508            67.2
>2041            7508            67.2
>2042            7524            66.8
>
>Column 6 is the first imaging pixel and column 2037 is the last imaging
>pixel.  Looking at the images I can see stars in these columns.  This gives
>the 2032 imaging pixels we expect.  I really don't understand the other
>columns in relation to what Tom describes below.  One thing I did see is
>that column 2041 exactly duplicates column 2040.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mike G.