Re: Useful Research?

["Gamble family" <dgamble1@bigpond.net.au>]

Instead of reading the whole of collected.big into MSWord, it is easier to
create a blank database in Access, and then link (not import) to the CD.
Access makes it simple to view extract or manipulate  the data that is of
interest. I tried this with an old Portable with very limited disk space and
it works well.

David Gamble

----- Original Message -----
From: jg <jg@jgws.freeisp.co.uk>
To: Martin Nicholson <Martin@crozet.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <tass@listserv.wwa.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: Useful Research?


> Martin Nicholson wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> The data is ascii in fixed length records, but each line has the unix
> end of line line feed convention instead of the dos EOL line feed +
> carriage return convention.
>
> Stuff included are full JD, johnson V and st dev thereon, Cousins I and
> standard dev thereon, etc and also positon in decimal degrees to equinox
> J2000.
>
> Documentation is nigh on nil, but data format is usually evident from
> reading the comments at the top of the PERL scripts (written in ascii)
>
> You can read the data files into word for windows and do search on key
> identifiers (there is a kind of running number on the "collected"
> files).  If you've only windows you won't be able to get the perl
> programs to run, but there is a humongous (240 Mb file) collected.big
> file that is useable.
>
> Basically, it's flat ascii and if you can get at flat ascii you're
> laughing, but the size of the collected.big file is a bit of a bugger if
> you can't get any of the perl stuff to work.
>
> > 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.
>
> I hate referees.
>
> You'd think they'd at least read the bloody paper before ripping it
> apart ;)
>
> (actually it was only one referee, and an insistance on our part led to
> it being refereed by too others who passed it with glowing words...
> ...kinda weird).
>
> Publishing is hard and long winded tedious work that takes time from
> observing and/or analysing.
>
> On the other hand, publishing is a fantastic way for one to find out
> exactly how much one _really_ knows about the topic, and a good referee
> will lead to you actually learning things and possibly even having
> things that have always been a problem clarified.
>
> For ideally referees should be knowledgeable in the field on which you
> have written.  Ideally.
>
> Cheers
>
> John
>
> John Greaves, Northampton, UK  (t'other end of the A45)
>
>