To: Novak Giles <g-novak@northwestern.edu>,
        Krejny Megan <megan@lennon.astro.northwestern.edu>,
        Dowell Darren <cdd@submm.caltech.edu>,
        Shinnaga Hiroko <shinnaga@submm.caltech.edu>,
        Lerothodi Leeuw <leeuw@oddjob.uchicago.edu>,
        Attard Michael <mattard@uwo.ca>
From: "johnv@submm" <johnv@submm.caltech.edu>
Subject: Feb 2007 RGM
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:02:45 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.5/4140/Mon Sep  3 10:59:33 2007 on 
submm
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 
autolearn=failed
        version=3.2.3
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on 
submm.caltech.edu

I updated the default RGM on zamin for the Feb 2007 run to be an
average on the 2 new Orion RGMs Darren made.  This was done using 
the
code cmprgm.pro which can be found on zamin at ~sharp/bin/IDL/

The new gains differ from the previous RGM that I had made (also 
with
the 2 Orion files) by less than 1 %.

A cursory glance at the OMC and CRL618 rgm's reveals:

   The 3 CRL rgm's agree to within +/- 10 % at the worst.
    The 2 OMC rgm's agree to within +/- 1 % at worst.

Combining all 5 -- the uncertainty's are dominated by outliers in
comparing the CRL618 data, so again they agree to within 10% .

I have not done any of the analysis suggested in Darren's last
email.  But I agree they are all good tests to do.

-John




Subject:
feb 2007 RGM
From:
"johnv@submm" <johnv@submm.caltech.edu>
Date:
Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:51:17 -0700
To:
Novak Giles <g-novak@northwestern.edu>, Kirby Larry 
<lkirby@illyria.uchicago.edu>, Krejny Megan 
<megan@lennon.astro.northwestern.edu>, Attard Michael <mattard@uwo.ca>, 
Houde Martin <houde@astro.uwo.ca>, Shinnaga Hiroko 
<shinnaga@submm.caltech.edu>, LEROTHODI LEEUW <lleeuw@arc.nasa.gov>, 
Dowell Darren <cdd@submm.caltech.edu>

For those of you using data from Feb. 2007:

I have updated the RGM on zamin to mask pixel (7, 21) which seemed to be 
good in some files, but not others.

-John