Error in header of echelle/dispcor spectra
Michael Weber wrote on Mar 15, 2007
I noticed, that whenever I have two calibration frames, the wavelength calibration string in the header gets mixed up a bit: There is no space between the function describing the frist calibration frame and the second one.
Example
spec1 = "1 51 2 11090.442173559 0.069907943784566 2043 0. 390.55 394.55 0.47011236 0. 1 4 1. 2043. 11162.8227882108 71.3776046374417 -1.00430427491927 -0.01016064638997420.52988764 0. 1 4 1. 2043. 11162.8234571018 71.3867230476937 -1.00553889426357 -0.00311220853411926"
note the -0.01016064638997420.52988764 beeing the last coefficient of the first function concenated to the weight of the second function. This happens for each order.
IRAF somehow doesn't mind when reading this, and I managed to also read in the right stuff with python, but it should nevertheless get fixed (maybe it is already in the next release?)
This is IRAF 2.12.2, functions are Cheb. Polyn.
Michael
Example
spec1 = "1 51 2 11090.442173559 0.069907943784566 2043 0. 390.55 394.55 0.47011236 0. 1 4 1. 2043. 11162.8227882108 71.3776046374417 -1.00430427491927 -0.01016064638997420.52988764 0. 1 4 1. 2043. 11162.8234571018 71.3867230476937 -1.00553889426357 -0.00311220853411926"
note the -0.01016064638997420.52988764 beeing the last coefficient of the first function concenated to the weight of the second function. This happens for each order.
IRAF somehow doesn't mind when reading this, and I managed to also read in the right stuff with python, but it should nevertheless get fixed (maybe it is already in the next release?)
This is IRAF 2.12.2, functions are Cheb. Polyn.
Michael
Mike Fitzpatrick wrote on Mar 15, 2007
Michael,
Thanks for the report, this bug is already fixed in the V2.13 releases.
Cheers,
-Mike
Thanks for the report, this bug is already fixed in the V2.13 releases.
Cheers,
-Mike
Michael Weber wrote on Mar 15, 2007
Hi Mike,
sorry for being a pain, but I am currently rerunning reduction on all our data (using V2.13-beta2), and I noticed no changes concerning the above mentioned bug (the dispersion function from the two respective comparison spectra are not seperated with a space).
Michael
One example:
spec1 = "1 62 2 9122.4339960212 0.057532150161236 2043 0. 489.85 497.81 0.50358886 0. 1 4 1. 2043. 9182.00540110574 58.7531730364609 -0.830770495299921 -0.009983924140730740.49641114 0. 1 4 1. 2043. 9182.00467588306 58.748928915468 -0.8306682938376 -0.0115088068337164
sorry for being a pain, but I am currently rerunning reduction on all our data (using V2.13-beta2), and I noticed no changes concerning the above mentioned bug (the dispersion function from the two respective comparison spectra are not seperated with a space).
Michael
One example:
spec1 = "1 62 2 9122.4339960212 0.057532150161236 2043 0. 489.85 497.81 0.50358886 0. 1 4 1. 2043. 9182.00540110574 58.7531730364609 -0.830770495299921 -0.009983924140730740.49641114 0. 1 4 1. 2043. 9182.00467588306 58.748928915468 -0.8306682938376 -0.0115088068337164
Last post on Mar 15, 2007