From gmoellen@cv3.cv.nrao.edu Wed Mar 28 17:18:18 2001 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:08:52 -0700 (MST) From: George Moellenbrock To: gtaylor Cc: Steven T. Myers , AIPS++ Core Testing Group , dshepher@zia.aoc.NRAO.EDU, efomalon@cv3.cv.nrao.edu, gvanmoor@zia.aoc.NRAO.EDU, jbenson@zia.aoc.NRAO.EDU, jhibbard@cv3.cv.nrao.edu, julvesta@zia.aoc.NRAO.EDU, tcornwel@zia.aoc.NRAO.EDU Subject: Re: Testing log (March 22-28) Greg, > Results in: > Set the flux density scale using reference calibrators > Flux density for 0319+415 (spw=1) is: 21.522 +/- 0.010 Jy > Flux density for 0319+415 (spw=2) is: 22.026 +/- 0.018 Jy > Flux density for 0521+166 (spw=1) is: 8.466 +/- 0.002 Jy > Flux density for 0521+166 (spw=2) is: 8.275 +/- 0.002 Jy > Flux density for 0713+438 (spw=1) is: 1.964 +/- 0.001 Jy > Flux density for 0713+438 (spw=2) is: 1.991 +/- 0.001 Jy > Starting calibrater::correct > > These are indeed getting pretty close. Better than what George > reported to me, but I don't know why: > > George > AIPS aips++ diff (%) > 0319+415 21.477 21.469 0.037 > IF( 2) 22.080 21.974 0.480 > 0521+166 8.415 8.444 0.343 > IF( 2) 8.234 8.259 0.304 > 0713+438 1.958 1.959 0.051 > IF( 2) 1.993 1.987 0.301 > 1331+305 15.007 > IF( 2) 14.654 > The numbers I quoted on March 15 used a different solution interval for 3C286, hence the difference you note. I've run the same script today, and I get very nearly the same answers you have achieved today, the remaining differences (a few in the 3rd decimal place) probably to do the details in flagging differences between our ms files or the fact that the vla filler is now (a) flagging shadowed data and (b) writing the correct sensitivity weights. Remaining differences with AIPS are almost certainly to do with subtle differences in the details of implementation and parameters (like solint). I'd argue that aips++ is doing better than "pretty close". Things are working quite well, I think. Proceed optimistically! -George