...
First, the serial number to sensor id relation can be read from the data archive, since the rserial output is archived. Assuming Tom progressed through the serial ports in order, they show the serial number sequence to be 744, 745, 376, and not 745, 376, 744. The sensor ids are also in time order: 2040, 2050, 2060, and the mapping of sensor id to serial number matches the intended configuration, and not the crossed configurationThe serial number messages from the archive of the wide array are shown here:
| Code Block |
|---|
data_dump -A -i 2,2040-2060 downwind1_20080629_153516.dat | fgrep ET= sample for sensor id 2,2040, with SN 744 2008 06 29 22:30:34.0640 0.02535 2,2040 516 \n>-Reset. EEProm_sig=10244. Prom_sig=17263. \n>??\r\nET= 60 ts=i XD=d GN=112a TK=1 UP=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=1 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d tf=02600 02600 02600\r\nWM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=1 ELo=008 010 010 ELb=010 010 010 TNo=eeb d TNb=eec JD= 007\r\nC0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=6 8 8 tlb=8 8 8 CA=1 TD= duty=092 AQ= 60 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 UX=0 MX=0 DTU=02320 ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0744 07nov07 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 sa=1 rev 3.0f cs=10244 &=1 os= \r\n>DD\xe9\xf1\xd3U\x04\xd8/\xe4\x0fU\xaa sample for sensor id 2,2050, with SN 745 is 2.5 minutes later 2008 06 29 22:33:09.7736 0.0125 2,2050 516 \n>-Reset. EEProm_sig=46481. Prom_sig=17263. \n>??\r\nET= 60 ts=i XD=d GN=100a TK=1 UP=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=1 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d tf=02600 02600 02600\r\nWM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=1 ELo=010 010 010 ELb=010 010 010 TNo=dcf d TNb=ede JD= 007\r\nC0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 8 tlb=8 8 8 CA=1 TD= duty=093 AQ= 60 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 UX=0 MX=0 DTU=02320 ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0745 05nov07 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 sa=1 rev 3.0f cs=46481 &=1 os= \r\n>D\xfd\xdd\xd8\xde\x01\x01\x02/\xf6\x0fU\xaa sample for sensor id 2,2060, with SN 376 is 1.5 minutes later 2008 06 29 22:34:38.8956 0.01639 2,2060 522 \n>-Reset. EEProm_sig=28394. Prom_sig=17263. \n>T\n>\r\n>??\r\nET= 60 ts=i XD=d GN=222a TK=1 UP=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=1 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d tf=02600 02600 02600\r\nWM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=1 ELo=010 010 010 ELb=010 010 010 TNo=dde d TNb=dee JD= 007\r\nC0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 8 tlb=8 8 8 CA=1 TD= duty=094 AQ= 60 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 UX=0 MX=0 DTU=02320 ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0376 09nov07 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 sa=1 rev 3.0f cs=28394 &=1 os= \r\n>D\n\xc9\x14\xc9\xb3\x00\xe61\xf7\x0fU\xaa |
Assuming Tom progressed through the serial ports in order, they show the serial number sequence to be 744, 745, 376, and not 745, 376, 744. The sensor ids are also in time order: 2040, 2050, 2060, and the mapping of sensor id to serial number matches the intended configuration, and not the crossed configuration.
Perhaps two mistakes were made which cancelled each other: cross-cabling, and making the wrong complement association between serial port and sensor id in the XML? Or perhaps the XML on the DSM was corrected to match the cabling shortly after the wide array started, and then corrected back for array2the medium spaced array? Both seem unlikely. The sequence of the above serial numbers suggest that neither of the above occurred, and that the serial ports were recorded incorrectly in Tom's log message.
...