Re: vt17a
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]
From: <Jim.Lovell_at_email.protected>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:53:35 +1100
Hi Chris,
I don’t think it would be a problem at Hobart to do 6.7 instead of 8.4 GHz.
I would like to do some eTransfer of 12m IVS data over the weekend though. Can we share the network or do you need all we’ve got?
Cheers,
Jim
On 31/03/2011, at 8:22 PM, Chris.Phillips_at_csiro.<!--nospam-->au wrote:
>Hi Guys
>
>The test experiment on Sunday (vt17a) was scheduled for 8 GHz. It turns out that is a MAJOR pain at Parkes as it is 64 MHz and Parkes has some funky setup issues at 8 GHz.
>
>I propose changing this to 6.7 GHz, a similar setup to the v255n (but single frequency not the split freq).
>
>This should not be an issue with Mp/At
>
>Does this cause problems with Hobart? We can drop Hobart in necessary, but I would prefer to keep it for eVLBI practice.
>
>Cheers
>Chris
Received on 2011-04-01 09:54:12
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:53:35 +1100
Hi Chris,
I don’t think it would be a problem at Hobart to do 6.7 instead of 8.4 GHz.
I would like to do some eTransfer of 12m IVS data over the weekend though. Can we share the network or do you need all we’ve got?
Cheers,
Jim
On 31/03/2011, at 8:22 PM, Chris.Phillips_at_csiro.<!--nospam-->au wrote:
>Hi Guys
>
>The test experiment on Sunday (vt17a) was scheduled for 8 GHz. It turns out that is a MAJOR pain at Parkes as it is 64 MHz and Parkes has some funky setup issues at 8 GHz.
>
>I propose changing this to 6.7 GHz, a similar setup to the v255n (but single frequency not the split freq).
>
>This should not be an issue with Mp/At
>
>Does this cause problems with Hobart? We can drop Hobart in necessary, but I would prefer to keep it for eVLBI practice.
>
>Cheers
>Chris
Received on 2011-04-01 09:54:12