Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Posted by Richard Miles at 22:07 on 2012 Aug 23
I use AstroArt V.4.0 for image capture as it is easy to use if you have a fairly complicated series of images to take and furthermore I use a textfile to take a series of images of various targets during which time I can retire to the pub, watch TV, etc.Generally speaking no one piece of software does everything so I use IRIS, AIP4WIN, GUIDE, Astrometrica, AstPhot32, FITS Viewer and occasionally SX software as well as AstroArt. Several of these are freely availableTry posting your question re. operation of the Lodestar autoguider on the SX Yahoo e-group list. I think it may have come up before.Richard
Posted by Richard Miles at 21:51 on 2012 Aug 23
Have made time to further follow the discussion / read attachments / view your first draft of a paper entitled "An analysis of periodicities in perturbations by Jupiter to the orbit of dwarf planet Ceres, with application to other major asteroids" for the first time.Certainly plenty of constructive criticism and useful material has been made available in the course of the online discussions over the past few weeks thanks to the contributions from all concerned and especially from yourself Steve. We should certainly be able to exploit much of this to hone the process of accepting articles and papers for publication in the JBAA. Thanks everyone.Allow me to broach the concept that a significant fraction of material submitted for publication never sees the light of day by appearing in said publication. There are a whole host of reasons for this but generally speaking having more articles and papers than space to publish is generally a healthy situation. Remember that from time to time some draft articles/papers will inevitably be received which really are unsuitable for publication anywhere. However, your draft paper is certainly not in this category as I found it to be of interest to myself as the current Director of the Asteroids and Remote Planets Section. It is good to see that you used Aldo Vitagliano’s SOLEX software to further pursue your initial numerical-based analysis. The question whether or not this should have been revised and reproduced as a JBAA paper is a difficult one. I remember well a paper I wrote and submitted in 2004 entitled "Methane abundance in Titans stratosphere", in which I used photoelectric and CCD observations of the central flash seen during the occultation of 28 Sgr by Titan obtained from two observing sites (both run by amateur astronomers) in 1989 to calculate the concentration of methane in Titan’s upper atmosphere – the paper was rejected by a professional astronomer and that was the end of the matter. Looking back on it I certainly believe this was unfair. So like you I have been on the receiving end of what I considered an unfair process.So yes, let’s see how we can further improve matters for future JBAA authors. As I have just published a lengthy theoretical paper in the journal Icarus, I have first-hand experience of how the publisher Elsevier operates and there are a few approaches they use which may be adopted in suitably modified form by the BAA, for example.The idea of a second publication alongside the Journal has been discussed in the past and indeed has been tried in the past. What has now changed the game is the internet. Needless to say how we best utilise the internet has been a perennial topic for Council. Various approaches can be envisaged: Some BAA observing sections have their own publications which can exist in both paper and in online form, but doing this for ALL sections requires volunteers to come forward to help make these possible. Roger Dymock, my predecessor as Director of ARPS, used to publish "Impact", which was an online section newsletter. In total 23 issues were published between March 2006 and April 2008 and each issue required several days work to compile and edit. If "Impact" was still extant, your draft paper could have been published as an online one. Is there scope for BAA online publishing of material of a more technical nature? Or how about some lengthy technical papers being published as an extended abstract in the Journal and the full article is then made available online? Some professional papers have started to appear with an online Appendix for example, in which items of a more technical nature or which are physically big, or which are best displayed as a high-res PDF are made available.Finally, how about publishing your paper on astro-ph? It’s accessible at:http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-phI might be able to help you do this.Richard
Posted by Andrea Tasselli at 16:51 on 2012 Aug 23
I seem to remember (but I might be wrong on this count) that there is a specific bit in the Association charter that refers to it being "devoted to the pursuit of astronomical observations [by amateurs]" as well as remarks to that effect by some officers. If this is indeed the case then a paper such as the one being discussed here might find it difficult to be published, with some reason. While articles have been published that do not directly deal with astronomical observations I submit that:1. AFAIK historical articles published refer to either astronomical observations done in the past or past observers or are in any way connected to astronomical observations.2. Theoretical articles have been publised that deal with celestial mechanics in some form but they are related to the actual act of observation either in acta or in fieri. As for the other points made as shall reply as follows:a. I wrote "I suspect" I was implicitly airing my opinion about both the palability of such an article to the wider readership of the Journal, the composition thereof and the reason why the publication was refused. Again MY opinion. Something I thought was elicited by Steve’s previous post.b. As I (as well as all other members) pay for the pleasure (or the displeasure) of actually reading the Journal’s contents I suspect that the "popularity" of articles to be submitted for publication would be very high on the editors’ agenda. Just because a paper’s content is scientific doesn’t automatically grant the right to be published, I would expect.c. While computational astronomy is certainly a fascinating subject I hold that it should find its way into the journal only whether is related to observations not as an area of interest per se.d. I cannot find anything more ridicule that the snobbish attitude of always trying to show to measure up to what the "pros" are doing. Why should we (amateur astronomical observers) have to try to compare with the professionals is beyond me. Andrea T.
Posted by Paul Abel at 01:52 on 2012 Aug 23
Indeed- we will be talking about MSL and other thing for September’s Sky at Night. Let the good work commence!
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 01:03 on 2012 Aug 23
An interesting post from Andrea, as it touches upon several of the points I have been making.I find Andrea’s description of my work, together with his subsequent use of the term "observations" rather revealing. While of course we all know that the only "real" astronomers are those brave souls who freeze to death at 2am while peering into their eyepieces, the science of astronomy is not, never has been and cannot in the future be solely about observations. As in any scientific endeavour, theory and practice must go hand-in-hand and so "computational astronomy" is just as valid as taking pictures of galaxies. Can one presume that if Messrs Copernicus and Kepler were to submit their work on planetary orbits to the JBAA their submissions would be rejected on the grounds that they were just "basically an essay in orbital mechanics"? We are, after all, the British Astronomical Association, with all that implies, not the British Astronomical Observations Society.Following this train of thought through a little, may we assume that, as Andrea appears to believe the BAA should devote itself to observations and the reporting thereof, he would agree that many of the papers (and indeed other articles) currently published in the Journal have no right to be there? One would struggle to find much observational content in what I have called Historical and Biographical submissions, for example, so presumably they should have been omittted. One can’t have it both ways. Several contributors have revelled in the range of items in the JBAA, reflecting the wide range of interests of its members (both observational and otherwise), and so do I. I simply wish to ensure that a clear and firm distinction is made between "papers" and "articles", as "paper" in the context of "Journal" has a special and widely recognised meaning which should not be distorted.I now move on to Andrea’s presumption that my paper would have little appeal to the readership of the JBAA, and certainly not to him. Three points to be made here. Firstly, I am not clear how he feels he can accurately judge whether a paper might be of interest or not: what sample of the membership is his comment based on? I have previously made the same remark concerning similar views expressed by referees. Secondly, it is of course his prerogative to be uninterested in my work. For my part, I have no interest whatsoever in the large number of papers by Boyd, Shears et al. I, like Andrea would with mine, quickly flick past them as soon as I come across them. Unlike Andrea, however, I do not consider this a valid reason not to include them in the JBAA. Indeed, they are exactly what the Journal should be publishing. Which leads me on to my third point. It is one I have already made several times but which seems not to be getting through so I fear I must repeat it again – "popularity" is absolutely not a criterion by which a scientific paper submitted to a Journal should be judged, so let’s stop the preoccupation with the interests of the readership.Lastly, the "By the way" paragraph. I feel I must point out that I did not refer to the JBAA as a science publication but rather as a "science-based" one – quite a difference. I have already remarked in another post about the word "amateur". We may be amateurs because we do not make a living from our hobby but I would fervently hope we all adopt a professional approach to it. Stressing the "amateur" aspect of the BAA is destructive in many ways, as it encourages amateur thinking (in the worst sense of the word) and gives the impression to others that this is all we are capable of. If we want to be seen as professional we must act as if we are, and that applies to JBAA papers as much as any other aspect of the Association.Steve Holmes
Posted by Andrea Tasselli at 10:28 on 2012 Aug 22
After having read the "paper" in its web format I can see why the "powers that be" refused publication; it is basically an essay in orbital mechanics which I suspect has little appeal to the readership of the JBAA, being mostly interested in actual observations rather than in any amount of celestial mechanics avulse from said observations. I, for one, would be immediately skipping to the next article just on sight of the title. By the way, the JBAA is not a "science" publication per se but just the journal of the BAA, an amateur organisation dedicated to astronomical observations by amateurs.Andrea T.
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 00:06 on 2012 Aug 22
I had hoped that once people had more time to tap their keyboards rather than stare at their TV screens in this post-Olympic epoch there might be some more posts on this thread – but no (good number of "views" though – shows the rank-and-file are at least interested in this topic even if they don’t comment!). I shall add a further contribution though, to keep things ticking over while Council cogitate.Nothing extra about the issues at point (you’ll probably be glad to hear!) but instead an opportunity for Members to see what they’ve been denied due to my paper not being accepted for JBAA publication. I originally constructed it in web-page form so all I need to do is give a link, and everyone will be able to browse the paper in its full glory. So – here’s the link:-Perturbations to the orbit of CeresComments are most definitely invited (your chance to be a JBAA Papers Referee!).Steve Holmes
Posted by Paul Abel at 13:56 on 2012 Aug 15
Absolutely hopeless! Didn’t see a thing, which is normal for me with meteor showers!
Posted by Nick James at 21:34 on 2012 Aug 13
Sounds like the weather across the country has been pretty patchy.Last night was hazy again but there were some good events. The best one was this bright Perseid with a terminal flare which appeared at 20:44:30 UTC.
The video of this event is here:http://www.nickdjames.com/Meteor/201208/20120812_204430.mp4Nick.Posted by Paul A Brierley at 19:29 on 2012 Aug 12
Myself together with four members from Macc As. Were watching on Friday night.SQM 23.1, NLM 5.6. Milky Way through Cygnus was very clear, together with NGC7000 and IC1396 in Cepheus.We counted around six meteors between 22:30hrs and 00:00hrs bst. One particularly bright -4 meteor, that I missed, was observed shooting through Cygnus.I was trying to make notes but we had a gale blowing, making writing things down very difficult. I gave up and just enjoyed the spectacle. We also had two very good passes of the ISS. That object is now the brightest man-made object in the sky. And show’s a distinct none circular shape through 10×50 glasses.
Posted by Nick James at 16:20 on 2012 Aug 12
I’ve put the highlights video from last night on my website here:http://www.nickdjames.com/Meteor/201208/20120811-12.mp4This is the output from my automated event extraction software. Each clip is 10s long and should contain a meteor. Some are faint and low down and the most spectacular is at 01:45 on the video although it is not a Perseid.Nick.
Posted by Gary Poyner at 14:19 on 2012 Aug 12
Heart of England AS has 11 members observing on Aug 11/12 through drifting cloud with good breaks. 23 meteors from 22.25UT-00.15UT (then heavy cloud) including two spectacular fireballs of -6 & -5 mag. Just writing up for TA & BAA.Gary
Posted by Gordon MacLeod at 12:19 on 2012 Aug 12
I visually observed nine meteors ranging between +2 and 0 magnitude, between 22.00UT and 23.00UT from the Far North of Scotland. 98% clear sky and a slim band of cloud in the north west.
Posted by Andrea Tasselli at 13:05 on 2012 Aug 10
Thanks for the exhaustive replay Bob,Well, all I can say is that my processing steps are much much simpler than the ones you describe and I got lost a little bit along the way. While eventually how much saturation should be applied is a matter of personal tastes (and I do subscribe to your view of some excessively garrish star colours in a significant amount of DS imagery nowadays) I find that your image shows a biased pinkish hue all over the central bulge and some very brightly coloured H-alfa regions all araund the disk. Contrast this with much more muted tones in most of the stars of our galaxy.Anyway, thanks again.Andrea T.
Posted by R J Andersson at 10:42 on 2012 Aug 09
Hi Andrea,Thanks for the feedback. I agree about the artefacts – I still have work to do to refine my skills in that area. Part of the problem is deciding what the viewing distance will be and maybe I’m being too optimistic in assuming that the image will be viewed at a comfortable distance in its entirety rather than at a scale where each pixel is easily resolvable to the viewer’s eye. H-alpha wasn’t used as a luminance layer so maybe it would be of interest if I briefly described the processing. First up here’s a montage of some of the separate elements:
I don’t shoot luminance subs so I have yet to experiment with binning. I combine all my R, G and B subs to produce both a luminance image and a separate, and inevitably less deep, colour image. Apart from white balance and saturation tweaks that colour image is pretty much left alone and used as a "Color" layer in Photoshop. The luminance image for this shot was processed in PixInsight in a standard way with the extra step of creating a Star Mask to allow a spot of "HDRMultiscaleProcessing". The result was exported to Photoshop (16 bit TIFF is my preferred route) and then the stars were removed by a sequence of Dust & Scratches filter applications followed by a painstaking manual cleanup. I then subtracted the "No Stars" version from the original to produce a "Just Stars" version. The "Just Stars" version went back through PixInsight for a spot of deconvolution but I ended up applying virtually none as there weren’t any bloated stars in this image. I often pass a "No Stars" image back through PixInsight as well but this time I saw no benefit and achieved a better result by using a combination of the "Astronomy Tools" contrast enhancement "Action" and Topaz Labs "InFocus" Photoshop plug-in to boost the micro-contrast.The star removal process was key to getting the Ha image into a usable form. As you can see, subtracting the "Green divided by 15" signal from the stacked Ha image got rid of a lot of the unwanted continuum signal in the disk but I was left with quite a number of star ghosts, not shown above and presumably from red supergiants local to our own galaxy. With those removed (I used a blink comparison method by toggling a temporarily added "Just Stars" layer – see the previous paragraph) you can see the result above. There is still quite an excess of an Ha signal from the central bulge. I could have just erased it but as it shows spiral structure I decided to leave it and, fortunately, my colour choice for the Ha component didn’t upset the overall colour balance of the core when I added the Ha data as a Photoshop screen layer.The bottom right image is just a version of the originally posted image but without the Ha layer.So, returning to your comment about the lack of star colour. As mentioned above, apart from the separate H-alpha contribution the only colour in the image is due to a single "Color" layer in Photoshop. As a matter of personal preference I’m generally very unimpressed by images which show large numbers of brightly coloured stars as they look very unnatural to me. But I’ll then immediately ‘fess up and admit that my treatment of M31 is also unnatural as I’ve considerably compressed the dynamic range to display the outer disk without totally blowing the central bulge. Similarly, the micro-contrast to highlight the spiral structure is equally unnatural, not to mention the totally artificial rendition of the H-alpha intensity. I could certainly have made different choices, perhaps by applying the "Color" layer as two separate clipping masks to the "No Stars" and "Just Stars" components and changing the saturation for those two components separately. In the end I chose the simpler route and also went for a muted approach where I concentrated on getting the disk colour of M31 where I wanted it with the core hinting at yellowish and some blueish tints marking out the hot young stars in parts of the outer disk.I’m still very much a newbie at this sort of processing. So much to learn but in terms of a personal "house style" I’m getting close to where I want to be but I always value feedback such as your own to make me question my choices and, hopefully, do better in the future. :)Bob.
Posted by Andrea Tasselli at 23:06 on 2012 Aug 07
Interesting picture, Bob. The higher resolution image shows a number of artifacts in the arms and overall I found it on the overprocessed side. Possibly because of the processing most of the stars are utterly saturated and lost most if not all their colours (this might also due to the use of the h-alpha as (part of) a luminance layer). The D60 is an awesome piece of kit if it allows to do unguided shots this long!Thanks for sharingAndrea T.
Posted by Nick James at 20:16 on 2012 Aug 07
Paul,Indeed. Pretty amazing stuff. As an engineer working in the European side of this business I take my hat off to the professionalism and skill of the NASA/JPL and industry engineeers who managed to get Curiosity down on the surface of Mars. I wonder what Gale Crater has in store for us?Nick.
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 21:42 on 2012 Aug 06
Having left things for a few days to see whether there would be any further posts (and to enjoy a fabulous Olympic weekend!), herewith my next set of thoughts.Thanks to all three of the recent contributors (particularly to the representative of the Silent Majority!), whose comments had a number of common themes. I shall firstly respond to Nick James’ first three points though (concerning papers submission and refereeing)My point about there being insufficient definition of the process did not refer to how to submit a paper (for which there is indeed guidance) but what happens next – I would suggest that there is no guidance about this at all. I would also suggest that what does, in practice, happen next is almost certainly not well-defined and definitely inconsistent. As to there being no discussion entered into after acceptance/rejection, I am happy to see that David Basey seems to agree with me that this is unreasonable. Even if one does not question the decision itself, surely one must be able to question the process by which the decision has been reached if one feels the material has not been fairly assessed?Moving on to Nick’s point about referees, I feel this illuminates one of the areas in this discussion where it seems there has been misunderstanding of the basic principles involved. Nick says that a referee should tell him whether a submission is correct, contains interesting material & is of interest to the Journal readers, and should not be involved in copy editing, technical correction & suggestions for re-writing. Unfortunately, if one consults any standard text on the refereeing of scientific papers, one will find that all but one of these assertions are incorrect!It is clearly one of the responsibilities of a referee to say whether the content of a submission is correct (or at least not incorrect) but, as I have said on a number of occasions, they should not be asked to give an opinion on interest (either generally or specific to a given Journal). "Interest" is not a criterion by which a scientific paper should be judged, and a fully-independent referee is unlikely, in any case, to have a sufficiently comprehensive knowledge of the interests of a readership to be able to give a judgement on this point.As to the "editorial" aspects, I agree that a referee should not involve him or herself in the fine detail of this but, again, a reading of standard treatises on refereeing will show that the making of constructive comments and suggestions for re-working is a fundamental part of a referee’s "job". As to not making technical corrections, surely this is a part of the "correctness" argument? It would hardly be sensible to let blatant errors go uncorrected, and if a referee expresses doubts as to correctness should he/she not provide a refutation rather than just say "I’m not convinced"?I shall now move on the the points where a consensus of views is emerging. Almost all contributors so far have said that they rejoice in the good range of articles published in the Journal. I have already said that I fully support this view. However! This does not mean that the definition of "BAA Journal paper" should be widened in order to include a greater range of subject matter for the Journal as a whole. Nick says that, as the BAA is an amateur organisation, it can use any definition of scientific paper that it wants and Paul appears to agree with this. I find this attitude extremely worrying. Unfortunately, if we wish our Journal papers to stand alongside papers published by other prestigious organisations it is absolutely not the case that we can do what we want. Papers in prestigious journals are published in accord with the internationally agreed definition I stated earlier (and which David agrees is accurate) and so if our papers are to stand comparison they must be published to the same standards. If we start making up our own rules then credibility is lost. We may be an amateur organisation, in that no-one is paid for their duties, but surely we must strive for the highest professional standards in all our actions – and that includes the publication of scientific papers.Again, I totally agree that [most of] those submissions that do not qualify as papers according to the accepted definition should still be published, but in a different section of the Journal – Section reviews, Historical perspectives, Observing seasons etc. This way we still publish the great range of material while maintaining a firm distinction between peer-reviewed papers and articles.I hope that the above will not be dismissed as a mere "what’s in a name?" argument, as the answer in this case is "everything!". A paper published in a science-based journal (as the JBAA is) is a scientific paper and the definition of a scientific paper is not open to us to alter. We should thus work within the definition, publishing as JBAA peer-reviewed papers those submissions that accord with it, to the great advantage of the standing of authors of same and the Journal as a whole, while publishing other "submissions of interest" as articles in other sections. To do otherwise will reflect credit on no-one.I have already given a link to the definition of "scientific paper" in my document reviewing published JBAA papers, so here’s some attachments which explore peer-review in great detail, in case anyone is unsure of the principles which are (or should be!) involved:- [file name=Review.doc size=49152]/images_old/fbfiles/files/Review.doc[/file] [file name=Review1.doc size=72192]/images_old/fbfiles/files/Review1.doc[/file] [file name=Review2.doc size=30720]/images_old/fbfiles/files/Review2.doc[/file]Steve Holmes
Posted by Nick James at 07:00 on 2012 Aug 03
Bob,Thanks for all the details. It is always good to get comments from people who have actually used the equipment and it looks as if the Paramount has some pretty serious competition.Nick.
Posted by David Basey at 13:52 on 2012 Aug 02
I had been thinking of posting my thoughts here for a while and in some respects Pauls last post has done that for me. However there is a little more I would like to add as one of Steve’s Silent Majority. First off let me say I have been a member of the BAA for several decades and have consequently read quite a few Journals, usually from cover to cover. That fact alone indicates that I at least am very happy with the mix.Taking Steves two points in turn.THE REFEREEING PROCESS.I have never submitted a paper so I cannot comment on the process first hand but as a customer I have expectations, specifically that whatever is published in the Journal is honest, accurate and true. Not only this, but it needs to be demonstrably so, without this the Journal clearly loses credibility. In practical terms this need translates into some form of refereeing process which is what we have irrespective of whether it is a scientific paper, a review or a Section report on an apparition.Ideally as a customer I would like to see all papers published in a timely manner but we have to accept that in most distributions there will always be a long tail. Now we may never know the reasons for the delay as that lies between the author, the referee and the Papers Secretary. There are I suspect plenty of good reasons for delay, for example illness and lets not forget the fact that all of these individuals have day jobs and give of what spare time they have on a voluntary and unpaid basis.While I understand the reason for Council not entering into discussions on a rejected paper, nonetheless in the interests of fairness there ought to be some method by which disgruntled authors can appeal if they feel they have been unfairly treated. A simple statement of their grievances for consideration by say the Papers Secretary should suffice. It seems unjust to risk losing a valid paper because of say, poor refereeing.SCIENTIFIC PAPER.To my mind we are getting hung up on terminology. But at the risk of being pedantic here are my thoughts.First off, I would agree with the definition that Steve offers of a scientific paper. Clearly within the Journal we have papers that do add to the sum of scientific knowledge and equally we have papers that do not. That really is my point, there are different types of paper all of which have value and nowhere does the BAA state that the Journal publishes papers only of the former kind. The Journal itself only refers to refereed papers not specifically scientific papers. Also, to quote from the Journal page of the BAA website:For 122 years the Journal has published the observations and work of BAA members. It also contains many other articles and items of interest to all amateur astronomers.The Journal is not debased by having a mix of articles rather that is its strength given its function. Do we need to separate them into categories? I think not, surely the Membership is capable of reading an article and telling the difference between one type of paper and another.Apologies for the length of this, the little more I wanted to add in the first paragraph seems to got out of hand.
