Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
In-Sky Safety / Re: FLARM
« Last post by Matt Wilkinson on June 14, 2019, 02:16:25 PM »
Recovered Post:

Hi.
The TRX-1500 FLARM rx is not available any more. Another good option, the one we already acquired, is the AT-1 receiver (it is the TRX-1500 successor).
https://www.gps.co.uk/air-avionics-at-1-traffic-system/p-0-3170/
Serna.
32
In-Sky Safety / Re: On telescope camera for plane spotting
« Last post by Matt Wilkinson on June 14, 2019, 02:15:56 PM »
Recovered post:

Good morning.
We are currently defining our Telescope system (our plan is to buy it this year). It is really interesting your work related with the optical camera for aircraft security. So we will have it into consideration for our system (in addition with ads-b, flarm, all-sky camera, directional microphone...).
Best regards.
serna_yebes
33
Dear Laser Tracking Colleagues,

G'Day from Tokyo.

In the 21st International Workshop on Laser Ranging (conference site: http://www.iwlr2018.serc.org.au/, proceedings site: https://cddis.nasa.gov/lw21/Program/index.html, I presented station-by-station performance charts (printed on 1-metre-long sheets) during the Clinic Session 3 co-hosted with Jose Rodriguez.  Here are the short summary of the analysis and the links to the charts.

Period: July 2017 to June 2018.
Satellites: LAGEOS-1, LAGEOS-2, AJISAI, STARLETTE, STELLA and LARES.
29 Stations with > 200 LAGEOS passes in the 1 year span.
More details about the analysis: See http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/Clinic_Booth3.pdf

Unlike the previous years' ones, this year's charts are organised PER STATION.  Matrix charts are also provided (printed on the reservse side) to help investigate the cause.

The first part contains:
  Residual wrt Range rate (negative in ascending (first) half, and positive in descending (second) half of a pass)
  Residual wrt Local time (defined by the station longitude, slightly different from the local standard time)
  Residual wrt Range rate (as specified in normal point data)
  Residual wrt Single-shot RMS (as specified in normal point data)
  Residual wrt Skew (as specified in normal point data)
  Residual wrt Kurtosis (as specified in normal point data)
  Residual wrt System delay (1), (2),.. (per system delay 'group')
  System delay (all sat) (including calibration data for other satellites not included in this analysis)
  System delay (A), (B), ... (vertical scale magnified as above)
  Calibration interval (cumulative) (typical calbration interval is at median (50%))

The matrix chart (second  part) labels, top-to-botumn = left-toright,  mean:
  Mon 17: Months from January 2017 (13 for January 2018)
  Hour: Local time
  # ret: Number of returns per NP bin
  Return rate
  RMS: Single-shot RMS
  Skew
  Kurt: Kurtosis
  Range rate
  System delay (1), (2), ...
  O-C: POD residuals
 
7090 (Yarragadee) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7090.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7090-a.png
7941 (Matera)  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7941.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7941-a.png
7825 (Mt Strolmo)  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7825.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7825-a.png
7237 (Changchun) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7237.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7237-a.png
7105 (Greenbelt) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7105.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7105-a.png
7810 (Zimmerwald) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7810.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7810-a.png
7840 (Herstmonceux) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7840.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7840-a.png
7110 (Monument Peak) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7110.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7110-a.png
7501 (Hartebeesthoek) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7501.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7501-a.png
7841 (Potsdam) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7841.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7841-a.png
7821 (Shanghai) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7821.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7821-a.png
8834 (Wettzell) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/8834.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c8834-a.png
7839 (Graz) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7839.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7839-a.png
7119 (Haleakala) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7119.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7119-a.png
7819 (Kunming) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7819.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7819-a.png
1887 (Baikonur) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/1887.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c1887-a.png
7838 (Shimosato) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7838.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7838-a.png
7249 (Beijing) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7249.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7249-a.png
7827 (Wettzell) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7827.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7827-a.png
7407 (Brasilia) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7407.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7407-a.png
1873 (Simeiz) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/1873.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c1873-a.png
1879 (Altay) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/1879.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c1879-a.png
7845 (Grasse) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7845.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7845-a.png
1893 (Katzively) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/1893.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c1893-a.png
1891 (Irkutsk) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/1891.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c1891-a.png
1868 (Komsomolsk-na-Amure) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/1868.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c1868-a.png
1889 (Zelenchukskya) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/1889.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c1889-a.png
1886 (Arkhyz) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/1886.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c1886-a.png
7811 (Borowiec) http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/7811.png,  http://geo.science.hit-u.ac.jp/slr/bias/2018sp/c7811-a.png

Best Regards,
Toshi
34

Today, while writing my own CRD-parsing python3 code, I felt a little bit wheel-reinventing

Since the new CRD/CPF format is going to release at the Canberra meeting, I guess it's time to think about our new CRD2.0 python library?
It should have following functions: verify the CRD2.0 format, extract data, etc.

I found in GitHub the CRD/CPF library from Olli Wilkman:

https://github.com/dronir/SLRdata

Could be a good start.
35
Recover Post:

Hi Arttu

Water spraying over the laser electronics doesn't sound like fun!  :o

We run a Lauda E100 at the SGF. When we had temperature variation problems it wasn't  the water cooler temperature that was unstable it was the temperature control of the amp. That temperature control system became unstable as the water flow around it had become very low, sounds similar to your problem but not so bad.

The fix was to add a bottle of Durgol Universal Descaler, as recommended by Michael Schmidt, to the water and run it for 2+ hours. This restored the water flow rate meaning the amp temperature control could work as intended again so no more temperature variation to cause the range variation we'd seen.

We have run the same Lauda water cooler continuously since the arrival of our kHz laser so 10+ years. I have replaced the fan motor 2 or 3 times though, it's not impossible to get to but access is tricky.

The water cooler has always been set at 20°. We don't run a filter on the outlet as Michael told us to remove it, we also stopped using OptiShield on his advice. We have always changed the water at least once a year. Micheal now recommends changing the water and flushing the system with Durgol every 6 months.

The last time I changed the water I added a bottle of Durgol before draining the old water and noticed an obvious improvement in water flow, despite having used Durgol at previous changes. It appears it doesn't take long for the limescale build up inside the laser waterways to have a noticeable effect on flow rate.

Toby
36
Recovered Post:

Hi Arttu,
in Graz we are using (since delivery of the laser) a Lauda chiller. LAUDA ecoline RE110
Cooling power @20° = 500W; Heating power = 1500W;
We have a filter of 100µm at the output (renewing once a year). And we changed the position of the temperature sensor from internal (chiller reservoir) to the output tube of the laser for having shorter warm up times. As a “descaler” we are adding OptiShield to the distilled water. This mixture we are renewing around every 5 to 10 years but we have to add around half a litre of distilled water every week. (losing a lot ??) By the way, beside some very short service periods, we never switched the HQ-Laser system off.
Greetings, Franz
37
Recovered post:

Hi,
I have a question especially for HighQ laser users (Matt, Sven, Franz et al.), what chiller are you using? Do you have some model from Lauda, with what specifications (cooling power, temperature stability; @Matt: how big deviations in temperature you had when you noticed the calibration changes?) We need to get a new one to replace our >10 year old Lauda in Metsähovi with a new one, and I'm trying to find the "best" option suited for our needs.

The backround is: we run into problems with the water cooling unit as we are not using our laser that much... even though the chiller has been on most of the idle time (and we have changed the water every once in a while), there was a major blockage inside the post amp. I had to use quite a lot of brute force, nasty chemicals and sharp tools to get the blockage open. Finally after this, everything went fine for some time until suddenly the water connector on the backside of the HighQ post amp analog modules broke down spraying the water all over the laser controller rack. Fortunately pretty much all of the electronics were shut down and everything seems to still work. Now finally the fan inside the cooling unit has stopped working (probably the motor is broken, pretty much impossible to replace) and the unit burnt two fuses while I was trying to operate the laser.

Lesson learned: be cautious and suspicious if you have water hoses connected on top of your electronics rack. Apparently it is the initial design from HighQ, seems that the connector was tightened too hard which had cracked the connector.

BR,
Arttu
38
Dear Jose,

I didn't check the forum for a while, however I made a comparison between the formula I found on some Arnold's papers and the one I was using, here are the results:

Peak           Arnold     my simulation
distance
1-2            28.9680   24.9776
1-3          110.7177   95.8031
1-4          243.2109  211.6056
1-5          423.1052  370.6967

the new value seems to reproduce correctly the data from RETRO. Now I'll try to see what can I do on the peak intensities.

Thanks again

Daniele
39
Station Equipment Questions / Re: Meteorological station
« Last post by serna_yebes on July 20, 2018, 08:00:48 AM »
Good morning Jorge, and thank you very much for your comments.
I need to verify the current sampling rate of the meteo station at Yebes.
The local microclimate is not also a problem here, as I told you the meteo station is about 60 meters from the planned SLR location. And yes, it has an anemometer. We will use the info from the anemometer (jointly with the rain on/off detector) to control the dome in case of risk.
We are buying a good all-sky camera and a rain detector to be installed in the SLR roof. We will buy also a cloud detector.
So I think we will install, in the SLR station optimum position, a new meteo station (JUST pressure, temp and RH) and share the other data from the meteo station in the observatory. This way we´ll also have redundant info from the barometers.


40
Station Equipment Questions / Re: Meteorological station
« Last post by delpino@riga on July 19, 2018, 12:46:10 PM »
Serna Yebes

I think that all participants on the Networks and Engineering Standing Committee Forum will agree on the following points:

•   The coordinates and in particular the height difference between the barometric sensor in use and the telescope invariant point should be included, measured and known in the local geodetic network.

•   The sensors (and in particular the barometer, which is the most difficult to calibrate “in situ”) should be calibrated periodically, (how we define “periodic” will be another looooong discussion).

•   What is now the sampling data rate of the current Yebes meteorological station?
Most SLR and GPS stations works at 10 minutes (at sharp second) sampling rate.
Remember that the pressure resolution asked is 0.1 milibar, and most of time, the pressure change rate in 10 minutes is less or equal than that.

•   The meteodata should be time tagged and available immediately at the local network, not only the last measurement done, but also the proceeding ones.

•   This is because the best practice is to include both pre- and post- meteorological values on the Normal point and this Normal Point file should be generated and delivered as soon as possible.
But if you do the “batch filtering” every few hours, you need to have access to the data of at least the last couple of days (to have a monthly file is a good compromise)

•   If the “local microclimate” at Yebes is (more or less) the same at the meteorological and SLR places, for example both places are surrounded by grass, this distance is not a problem.
In Riga we are using a common meteorological station at a distance of 32m (GPS) and 50m (SLR)

•   Do the current meteorological station has an anemometer?
Do you have strong winds at Yebes?
Because for really strong winds, automatically closing the roof/cupola/clamshell will be a good security measure against flying objects.
At the new buildings at GFZ Potsdam, all the windows have external Venetian blinds connected to a central anemometer. When the wind reaches a limit all the blinds are automatically lowered to protect the windowpanes

•   Invest the money on the best clarity/rain sensor in which the rain/snow alarm can be used to automatically close the SLR roof AND on a high quality all-Sky camera!
When several satellites are visible and it is partially cloudy, the all-Sky camera is the best tool for the on-the-spot tracking optimization.

And if you have a LOT of money project, and buy the independent, well calibrated SLR basic meteorological station situated at the SLR invariant height, no one at the SLR community will complain!.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10