From hermanm@eureka.mit.edu Thu Jun 18 10:37:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: from space.mit.edu (space [18.75.0.10]) by wiwaxia.mit.edu with SMTP id KAA23564 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eureka.mit.edu by space.mit.edu AA24809; Thu, 18 Jun 98 10:37:23 EDT Received: (from hermanm@localhost) by eureka.mit.edu id KAA19496; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:37:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "Herman L. Marshall" Message-Id: <199806181437.KAA19496@eureka.mit.edu> To: dd@eureka.mit.edu, kaf@eureka.mit.edu, nss@eureka.mit.edu, jhk@eureka.mit.edu Subject: Re: Another test with bad timestamps? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Status: R Content-Length: 1168 For CC mode, the PSU data are assigned frames according to the scheme outlined by Pat in the attached message. I had independently estimated that there were 622 "exposures" in a 15 min data segment, so I believe his number. Herman ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From patb@astro.psu.edu Thu Jun 18 08:58:35 1998 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:58:32 -0400 From: "Pat Broos" To: hermanm Subject: Re: Another test with bad timestamps? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Content-Length: 631 Hello Herman, In CC mode an "exposure" consists of 512 rows of data. There are ~285 pixels per row and the readout rate is 10 usec per pixel. So the interval between "exposures" should be something like 285 x 512 x 10usec = 1.45 seconds. ATICA currently assigns the exposure's timestamp to all the CC mode events in that "exposure". We could have been more accurate, using the "row" number of each event to refine the timestamp down to 1/512th of an exposure interval, however at the time we wrote ATICA we had not been provided with the CC mode timing details. For XRCF data high time resolution is worthless anyway. Pat ----- End Included Message -----