Re: Useful Research?

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

I could not agree more.  Early in this project I bought a 10" LX 200.  Lots 
of money.  I looked through it a few times and had it point at pretty 
objects and then was at a loss of what to do with it.  I really bought it 
with the idea that I could use it to follow up on comets that I found with 
the Mark I, Mark II.  ;^) Some amateurs use their telescopes to take pretty 
pictures.  That makes a nice hobby and requires lots of skill.  I am sure 
it is very satisfying for those that do it.  A very few others seem to be 
trying to do ccd photometry.  There are now a lot of telescopes out there 
and a lot of ccd cameras.  If we find just a few of these people and help 
them to learn to measure variable stars then we will have done a lot to 
give them a fun occupation.  It is also good science.  The thing that I see 
that tass can do is to guarantee gratification.  If one takes their 
cook-book and LX200 out it will take some time to find even one variable 
star.  On top of that is a monumental software task.  Michael Richmond (and 
others) have us to the point where we can grind out candidates.  So we can 
supply about as many as want to try this work.  No searching for something 
to measure.  Just the fun of measuring something that is bound to be 
interesting to someone.  See the pervious post on interesting vs unintesting.

I think that over time we can also generate model paper formats to reduce 
the burden of generating a publication.

I find that the professionals do not really "look down their noses at 
amateurs."   I have been on a number of paper selection committees for the 
IEEE.  The subject of amateur/professional just never comes up.  One looks 
at the paper paying no attention to the source.  Good papers are 
selected.  Well, this is not entirely true.  A well respected author can 
get a bad paper through the process.  Harry Nobel Winner gets his annual 
paper published even though it is a rehash of earlier papers.  But a good 
paper does get published, and no one looks to see if the author is an 
amateur or a professional of whether he is a turnip grower or a holder of 3 
PhDs.

Having said this, you do have to pay attention to the expected form for the 
society where you are trying to publish.  The form has to be right.  But 
you (MK) have made the proper start by copying the form of a standard IBVS 
paper.  I will bet you a hundred bucks that if you follow the form of the 
IBVS paper (and Ugh! LaTex) and  if the content is good and typical for 
that publication that you will get it published.  No one will look to see 
if you have any degree.  Soon you will be getting mail addressed to Dr. 
Koppelman.  The world will assume that if you do quality research work that 
you are a PhD.  Most of my mail at Fermilab was addressed to Dr. Droege.  I 
used to protest but gave up after a while.  Even physicists that I worked 
with for years thought I had a PhD.  In hard science, nearly everyone goes 
by what you do and how you think.  No one ever looks you up unless you are 
applying for a job.  They did not even used to do that as you can tell by 
the frauds that are uncovered from time to time that you read about in the 
paper.

My recommendation is that you try to think like a professional.  Think in 
terms of doing good work.  Be humble.  No one knows everything, so if you 
don't understand a term ask for help.  Believe in yourself.  Believe that 
you are making the best damn measurement possible.  If you do these things, 
then you will be a quality scientist.  The only difference will be that you 
are not getting paid.

Tom Droege

At 04:32 PM 6/6/02 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thursday, June 6, 2002, at 08:36  AM, Martin Nicholson wrote:
>
>>I suppose what I am saying is that collecting data without the
>>supporting infrastructure to process it is not a sensible policy.
>
>This, to me, is the power of amateurs. We should slowly assemble an army 
>of CCD-equipped amateurs to do follow-up observations, period analysis, 
>etc. It is a pet peeve of mine that a) so many amateurs with great gear 
>spend so little time doing science and b) so many professionals still look 
>down their great noses at us amateurs. Amateur astronomers are the Open 
>Source to their Micro$oft. We have more resources than they do when you 
>add us up collectively. Every variable star book I have, for instance, is 
>full of AAVSO light curves.
>
>I'm not really sure what your point was Martin. I'd bet a million bucks 
>that some day professionals will study stars that we discover here at TASS.
>  Tom has really got a great thing going here and I commend him. (I do not 
> mean to imply that you were disagreeing with this last remark.)
>
>Cheers,
>Michael
>