tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8698858162387672100.post6986777400174436238..comments2023-04-14T08:53:35.419-05:00Comments on Collected Shreds of AIPS Wisdom: CVEL and DBCON with ATCA DataLaurahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14007910800783392253noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8698858162387672100.post-65316848117758862812009-03-19T17:43:00.000-05:002009-03-19T17:43:00.000-05:00I ended up imaging the data in Miriad and double c...I ended up imaging the data in Miriad and double checking the line and it looked fine. The velocity structure was faint and intrinsicly weird, which is what was tripping me up.amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11427598026149859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8698858162387672100.post-82054857393108013562009-03-17T18:55:00.000-05:002009-03-17T18:55:00.000-05:00In my (limited!) experience with CVEL, it spits ou...In my (limited!) experience with CVEL, it spits out a little warning about not being guaranteed to work if you have ever SPLIT your data.<BR/><BR/>I think this is because there can be additional frequency corrections in the CL table that might get lost with SPLIT. I haven't run into this problem myself, but we're not doppler tracking so there shouldn't be any offsets anyway. I think the ATCA doesn't doppler track either, so that's probably not it.<BR/><BR/>Have you checked to see that the features are in the correct place before DBCON?<BR/><BR/>My other suggestion is that the velocity reference could be different than the published image: optical vs. radio, barycentric vs. some other frame.<BR/><BR/>I'm also guessing you've thought of all of this before! My experience with non-doppler-tracked VLA data hasn't had any problems with CVEL/DBCON so far.Adriennehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397473429623544442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8698858162387672100.post-8295140493035761972009-03-13T12:42:00.000-05:002009-03-13T12:42:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com