[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Useful Research?
--- Martin Nicholson <Martin@crozet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>It seems to me that there are four main stages in useful
> astronomical
> >>research.
> >>
> >>In brief they are:
> >>1) Deciding on the project
> >>2) Collecting the data
> >>3) Processing the data
> >>4) Publishing the data in a manner acceptable to the wider
> astronomical
> >>community
<SNIP>
> If you are self funded I accept that you can do what you like.
> However
> missing out any of the four stages I identified runs the risk of
> reducing the value of the research - perhaps even to the point of
> almost
> zero value.
Martin,
Your steps are correct for the typical "one time" grant. The guy
paying wants a paper or some other sign that the money was used.
With a continous program that may run without end we need to
think diferent. We all hope, I think, that step #2 will run for
at least a decade. Can we wait that long to begin step #3?
No. TASS will do all or your steps all at once. With something
ongoing results of later steps and refine early steps.
So, "stage" is a bad word here. It implies a finite chuck of
time. We should think "continous process" not a one shot linear
project.
>
>
>
> >>I have used the phrase "useful astronomical research" quite
> deliberately
> >>since much time and effort is wasted by amateur astronomers on
> projects
> >>that are rendered pointless when the participants ignore one or
> more of
> >>the basic principles of science. "One variable at a time" is a well
> >>established doctrine that astronomers should ignore at their peril.
>
> I didn't make this clear. Suppose you are taking photos of the
> globular
> cluster M3 with a view to looking for variable stars. I claim it
> would
> be better science to keep other variables - such as the exposure
> time,
> filters used or the temperature of the CCD - constant. If lots of
> factors are varying at the same time it is difficult to isolate the
> effect of each of them individually.
>
> I read recently that CCD obtained magnitude estimates of variable
> stars
> made without the standard filters ( V filter?) in place have a
> greatly
> reduced value. I assume the intention is to eliminate problems due to
> the variable response of different CCD's?
>
> >
> >>Calibrating every value on every image against the results obtained
> for
> >>ten or a dozen known non-variable stars that appear on the same
> exposure
> >>might be helpful.
> >
> >The frames I took last night had 403 calibration stars. That is 25
> per
> >square degree. This is typical for a sparse field. There are many
> more
> >as we go through the Milky Way.
>
> Good, one concern can be crossed off the list.
>
> >
> >>I read recently that the vast majority of scientific data is never
> >>looked at by those responsible for collecting it. Whatever
> processing
> >>methodology TASS decides to adopt it needs to involve as many
> people as
> >>possible. Too few "data crunchers" can mean that data is coming in
> >>faster than it can be processed. The backlog then never gets
> cleared.
> >
> >As of last night I had caught up on processing all the data taken
> since the
> >engineering run became stable last December. I had last night's
> rather
> >slim data processed to a star list by 8 AM this morning. I have now
>
> >completed the analysis of roughly 18000 images. I have only had a
> working
> >analysis pipeline for a few weeks. While I expect to reprocess all
> the
> >images again after we make further improvements in the pipeline, the
> data
> >is good enough to make measurements as indicated by TN-83.
>
> Better still, another concern can be crossed off the list.
>
> >
> >>Moving on - suppose we are satisfied that a star is variable.
> Without
> >>accurate information on the position, the period and the amplitude
> of
> >>the variation then this information is hardly worthy of note.
> >>Information on a minimum of two complete cycles should be regarded
> as
> >>the qualification for publication. This might take the best part of
> two
> >>years of data collection for long period variables.
> >
> >I think we disagree here. The position measurement appear to be
> good to an
> >arc second which is good enough to match them to more accurate
> position
> >catalogs like UCAC2. I think just collecting measurements and
> making them
> >available in an archive is a useful scientific result. It is not
> all the
> >work, but it is some of the work. So I am content to make
> 100,000,000 or
> >so photometric measurements on 3,000,000 stars a year from my
> installation
> >and put them in an archive. I will attempt to collect a variety of
> >epochs. There are some that are hard for me. This is my primary
> >goal. For amusement on the side I may try to identify and catalog
> >variables. This is not my primary goal. I figure that once I get
> enough
> >measurements in the archive that it will be actively used. But that
> is
> >just my bet.
>
> The hard core of active and skilled TASS members will already have
> known
> this excellent news. I, although in TASS terms neither active nor
> skilled, love looking through collections of data (we call it data
> mining in the United Kingdom) for stars of interest.
>
> The point is - and I made the same point some years ago - that people
> outside the hard core might benefit from the creation of a short but
> structured summary of what is going on. How is the data collected,
> how
> is it processed, what equipment does a person need to get involved in
> data processing etc etc.
>
> I simply would not know where to find out the key facts that might
> influence my degree of participation.
>
> For example you write
>
> "I just sent out 26 copies of the data taken between 6 an 8 hrs at
> +7."
>
> I would like to know:-
>
> 1) In what format is the data - list of positions and magnitudes? - I
> might have read it somewhere but I honestly don't know what to expect
> if
> I asked for a copy.
>
> 2) Readable on a PC using Windows or do I need Unix?
>
> >
> >>Once the information is of the required quality and quantity where
> >>should it be published so that other astronomers can find it? It
> seems
> >>to me that although most enthusiasts have heard of the GCVS there
> is
> >>still some uncertainty as to exactly how to get information
> included in
> >>the catalogue. There are lots of variable results floating around
> on any
> >>number of web sites that have clearly never been submitted to any
> third
> >>party.
> >
> >Bohden Paczynski was one of the people who prompted me to do this
> work. I
> >just sent him a disk with millions of measurements. Early on he
> said that
> >if I took measurements, he would find a way to archive them. He is
> now
> >working on it. Nothing like shoving data at someone to get them
> away from
> >talking about how to do it and into actual doing.
> >
>
> I agree. However the type of person who likes collecting data might
> not
> have the skills to process it and the person who like processing it
> might not have the time or inclination to create scientific papers
> based
> on the results.
>
> Martin Nicholson, Daventry, UK
>
> International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Centre - Observatory
> Code 456
> http://www.gcse-ict.info/astronomy/front.htm
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
Chris Albertson
Home: 310-376-1029 chrisalbertson90278@yahoo.com
Cell: 310-990-7550
Office: 310-336-5189 Christopher.J.Albertson@aero.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com