[INSTRM-1792] Reading MCS boresight from database instead of hard coded. Created: 17/Nov/22  Updated: 18/Jan/24

Status: In Progress
Project: Instrument control development
Component/s: pfs_utils
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Task Priority: Normal
Reporter: chyan Assignee: karr
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: EngRun
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Attachments: PNG File image-2024-01-18-12-25-20-174.png     File mcs_boresight_comp.py    

 Description   

Here in the pfs_utils, the boresight location is hard coded based on different elevation angle with initial value. We should think about possibility of using database value.

rhl Do you have any suggestion?

 Comments   
Comment by rhl [ 18/Nov/22 ]

My guess is that it doesn't matter, and that the fit will converge even if the model I hardwired is pretty bad.  In fact, it would probably converge even if we didn't attempt to correct for altitude.

However, this is something that we could and should confirm.

Comment by hassan [ 09/Feb/23 ]

To be addressed sometime in the next 6 months.

Comment by yuki.moritani [ 10/Mar/23 ]

At ASIAA software informal meeting, we agreed to start with to check difference run by run difference.

Here is a visit for the previous Boresight measurements:

Run visit El [deg] InR range [deg] InR step [deg] Note
2021.09 67419 – 67430 90 +180 ~ -150  -30  
  67447 – 67458 60 +180 ~ -150 -30 ADC=0
  68290 – 68301 60 -150 ~ +180 +30 ADC=7.32
  67459 – 67470 30 -150 ~ +180 +30 ADC=0
  68278 – 68289 30 +180 ~ -150 -30 ADC=22
2021.11 69959 90 -165 ~ +165 +30 Hexapod position was incorrect
  69963 75 -165 ~ +165 +30 Hexapod position was incorrect
  69960 60 +165 ~ -165 -30 Hexapod position was incorrect
  69962 45 +165 ~ -165 -30 Hexapod position was incorrect
  69961 30 -165 ~ +165 +30 Hexapod position was incorrect
2022.06 77490 – 77495 90 -150 ~ +150 +60  
2022.11 82410 90 -165 ~ +165 +30  

  Note that  Hexapod position was set at different position (1.8mm in X_pfi, -0.1mm in Y_pfi) from position we usually use. So, this offset should be taken into account.

Comment by yuki.moritani [ 18/May/23 ]

Jennifer and I talked about this. In the 2023 April/May run, we have updated MCS boresight , and found that it was shifted. 
mcs_boresight_comp.py 

If the slope is stable, we could use database to get boresight by reading the latest measurement at a given EL (e.g., EL=90) and the EL at the observation. Jennifer will check the stability of the slope.

Comment by yuki.moritani [ 18/Jan/24 ]

I found that the attachment was wrong the above comment. This figure compares boresight position used in pfs_utils and  that measured in April 2023. Since it, we didn't measure boresight at different EL, so stability of the slope is to be checked (in particular X).

Generated at Sat Feb 10 16:39:30 JST 2024 using Jira 8.3.4#803005-sha1:1f96e09b3c60279a408a2ae47be3c745f571388b.