-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
generalize the tomo_scan()
and user_tomo_scan()
plans
#49
Comments
related to #48 |
Summary of 2018-08 Taxi/Fly Tomo Scan
|
rough taxi/fly algorithm for tomo
|
rough step-scan algorithm for tomo
|
Consensus of the NSLS-II DAMA team is for bluesky plans to be functions rather than class methods. For tomography scans, it seems more natural in Python to create a strong base class with subclasses for step and taxi/fly, then subclasses for each instrument. |
@decarlof : Are you comfortable with the intention to create a generalized
|
First draft in another repo: https://github.com/BCDA-APS/APS_BlueSky_tools/blob/master/examples/tomo_issue49.ipynb |
Incorporate #46 (add delay between each dark and flat). |
Incorporate #48 (detector-specific info should be part of detector object) |
These working plans have protocols that are general but also have protocols that are very specific to the instrumentation in 2-BM-B. Generalize for use in other stations and beam lines (32-ID-C comes to mind). Ultimately,
tomo_scan()
might become part of a standard library (perhapsAPS_BlueSky_tools
) for general use.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: