Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Posted by Paul Abel at 11:47 on 2012 Aug 02
My final words on the matter; I think I would agree with everything you’ve said Nick. Similarly, I agree the precise definition of a ‘scientific paper’ would be far too restrictive and quite honestly pointless. What is the point in devising some obscure definition which we then have to rigidly stick to it and see the quality and breadth of papers we get in the JBAA drop away. I would argue, that as long as the material has been peer reviewed and presents some interesting new experience/facts/suggestions to the community- then it is suitable to be published in the JBAA as a paper. The fact that we can do that gives an outlet for material which might otherwise remain unpublished. I don’t really have anything further to add except to reiterate what I said earlier; I have found the process to be fair and helpful and the quality of the JBAA and the papers within it are very good. Moreover, as with all publications, the editor(s) have a right to say what goes in.Best wishes,-Paul.
Posted by Callum Potter at 11:19 on 2012 Aug 02
Tony has been having problems posting this picture of the filter. Here it is.If you wish you can reply direct to Tony at godlee19242@yahoo.co.uk
Posted by R J Andersson at 10:13 on 2012 Aug 02
Hi Nick,Thanks for the kind words. I’m not sure that I’m best placed to give a detailed comparison as the ASA DDM60 Pro is my first grown up mount, previously only having owned a cheap and cheerful motorised equatorial. Mechanically, as you have read, the ASA mount is an absolute delight and is just light enough that I can manoeuvre it on and off the pier:
As I understand it, earlier versions of the control software needed a deal of manual fine tuning of the three parameters used to control the motor power and responsiveness but that situation is much improved now. Even so I did have to tweak one setting a little after the automatic calibration routine (the software wobbles the mounting separately on the two axes in order to sense the moment of inertia of whatever is attached) as I was hearing some noise as the mounting slewed – it is normally completely silent! The manual gave me enough extra information to do this quite easily.When first installed the mounting allows a rough polar alignment in the northern hemisphere via use of a built in laser. That was good enough for me to mark out and drill the last few holes for the bolts which tie the mounting to the top stainless steel disk. The two stainless steel disks that you can see in the picture above and which couple the mount to the pier were bought separately from a laser cutting firm in the UK and had all the holes for the M12 bolts which hold the bottom plate to the pier and tie the two plates together accurately cut. The next task was to use the supplied Autoslew software to fine tune polar alignment. This is an iterative process where one commands Autoslew (I used third party planetarium software to do this) to point at a star and then nudge the pointing via Autoslew’s software control until the star is centred (using cross-hairs or, better still, a camera for pixel perfection) and then tell the software it is centred. Do this for three stars and then tell the software to do some sums. Then tell the software to point at the first star (should be near the meridian at about 45° elevation and apply it’s calculated polar alignment error. Then it’s a matter of adjusting the mounting screws to mechanically recentre the star. This procedure is repeated a few times until alignment is complete. With practice this could be done on the road with a tripod but I haven’t tried it.There is one further critical step for long exposure unguided astrophotography and that is to train the software to compensate for any residual pointing errors due to polar alignment (obviously can’t compensate for field rotation!), mechanical flexure or atmospheric refraction. That took me the best part of an evening to do as it requires pointing at a selection of stars all over the sky. By the way, it is perfectly feasible to use guided tracking with the DDM60.It all sounds complicated and the steep learning curve (for me, at least) isn’t helped by the manual’s general discoursive style. All the information is there but a check-list of steps to perform would have been useful. That said, the effort was totally worth it and I’m haven’t had to retrain since my TEC 140 was delivered in the Spring. An observing session starts with me assembling the kit on the pier. The holes in the stainless steel plates were laser cut to a fine tolerance so once I power up all I have to do is tell the software to find the internal calibration marks on the high resolution encoders on each axis. That takes a few seconds and I then slew to a star. The star will generally only be a couple of minutes of arc away from where it should be (I take care to always take out any slack in the same way as I assemble the kit on the pier) and it is only the work of a few moments to "Sync" that error away. From the start of assembly to the start of the first sub can take less than 30 minutes although typically I perform the mechanical assembly earlier in the day if it isn’t already set up. I don’t get perfect tracking everywhere on the sky but at 1.9 arcseconds per pixel I can always get perfect stars at 200 second exposures and often get perfect stars at 1,000 second exposures!That accuracy isn’t down to the torque motors, although their silent performance is very seductive, but owes more to the high resolution encoders on each axis and I think that is something we’ll see more of in the future from all manufacturers. But however friendly the enveloping software and manuals are the performance is ultimately down to attention to detail of the end user in calibration. But "attention to detail" is the mantra of astrophotographers in any event… :)Hope that helps.Bob.Posted by Nick James at 06:45 on 2012 Aug 02
I’ve been watching this thread for a few days and I think it is time to make some comments.Firstly, it would not be fair on the author or the referees to discuss specific aspects of Steve’s submission in a public forum so I will not do that.On Steve’s general points:- Guidance for authors is provided online but I agree it could do with a bit of an update. It is generally correct though and most authors make an effort to comply. We are, though, pretty flexible in what we would accept, unlike many professional journals.- It is correct that, once the paper had been rejected by Council, it is our policy not to enter into further correspondence with the author. This is done for reasons based on past experience. I accept that this is frustrating for the author but such discussions generally go nowhere and they take up a lot of valuable time.- The referees of each paper are unpaid experts in their field. Their job is to tell me whether the paper is correct, contains interesting material and, yes, whether it is likely to be of interest to our readers. I do not ask them to use their valuable time to copy edit papers, make technical corrections or help the author re-write stuff. That said, many referees will do this but usually only when the paper is likely to get through to publication.- I’d prefer referees not to be anonymous but sometimes they request this, generally for good reasons such as avoiding interminably long e-mail discussions with the author. I respect their wish.Over the last few years we’ve been trying very hard to make the content and layout of the Journal more appealing to our readership and I’m not really worried about the precise definition of a "scientific paper". We are an amateur organisation with a mostly amateur readership and we can use any definition that we want!I’d certainly be interested in views from everyone else but, to avoid the usual back-and-forth correspondence, I’ll back out of the discussion for a week or two before I respond again.Nick.
Posted by Nick James at 06:11 on 2012 Aug 02
Bob,That is a spectacular image and just shows what can be done with modern equipment and hard work. I’m certainly impressed by the tracking capabilities of the mount! Direct Drive mounts certainly seem to be the way to go. I’d be interested in any comments that you have on them. I had heard that the mechanics of the AS DDM mounts were very good but that the control software left a bit to be desired. Nick.
Posted by Americo Watkins at 03:43 on 2012 Aug 02
Hello Richard,I had heard that in the early days of the mounts existance that often the on board electronics would fail and need replacing due to the fact that the UK domestic supply was not stable and suffered from surges and spikes. I had been advised to use surge protectors such as supplied by Maplin similar to those used for PC’s. I wasn’t sure if this was the case still and if so would they suffice.Re-electrical storms, yes these seem to be a major concern. The domestic supply from the house is a very short distance. I might well do as you suggest – belt and braces. As a child in the school playground a lightening bolt missed me by a few feet and left a melted patch in the playground surface. Hopefully, the gods have tried once and failed so they might have given up.
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 00:01 on 2012 Aug 02
And here’s my response to Richard Miles.I must start by thanking Richard for (presumably) believing that this subject was of sufficient merit to warrant being discussed in Council. Clearly, I myself believe the same thing, so I am grateful to him for taking this initiative to get it included on an upcoming Agenda.Given that the matter may thus be about to be debated "at a higher level", I think it important for me to clarify the issues as I see them, to remove any lingering worries that I’m just having a moan because my paper wasn’t accepted. As I said earlier, I have two areas of concern, the first of which divides into a number of sub-topics:-1) Is the Association happy that standards of best practice are being universally and uniformly applied to the papers selection and peer-review process, regardless of the author, the subject matter and the referee(s)? In particular:-1a) Are the standards the JBAA is applying fully and clearly defined? (for example, should full referee reports be returned to authors or not? should referees be asked to comment on "reader interest"? should the names of referees be divulged?)1b) Are referees fully aware of the standards to which they should be working, and what is expected of them in a report?1c) Are all the standards to which the JBAA is working, or expects its authors and referees to work, fully and clearly documented in an easily accessible form?1d) Is sufficient information available to ensure that authors are fully aware of what to expect during the review process and at its conclusion? (for example, what outputs they may expect and whether they have any rights of enquiry).2) Is the Association happy that the types of submissions currently published as JBAA Papers all fully justify the title of "peer-reviewed scientific journal paper", thus placing them in a similar standing to other such papers published by prestigious scientific bodies.On this second topic, I have now completed my treatise analysing recent JBAA papers. While by no means a comprehensive dissertation on the subject of scientific papers and peer-review, it should at least help explain my thinking on the present matter. It can be read via the following links (Sorry – I had to split the document into 3, as the Forum software said it was too big to upload in one piece!):- [file name=JBAA_papers1.doc size=30720]/images_old/fbfiles/files/JBAA_papers1.doc[/file] [file name=JBAA_papers2.doc size=150016]/images_old/fbfiles/files/JBAA_papers2.doc[/file] [file name=JBAA_papers3.doc size=26624]/images_old/fbfiles/files/JBAA_papers3.doc[/file]Steve Holmes
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 23:25 on 2012 Aug 01
Well! Just as things seemed to be going quiet everything has kicked off again – and in a rather dramatic direction! I shall respond to Richard Miles in a separate post (as his contribution is clearly of a different sort), but here’s a few thoughts on Paul Abel’s comments.Firstly, as with previous comments, I thank Paul for taking an interest. Good to know that the topic has attracted several of the Association’s more well-known "personalities"! I would still be interested in comments from the silent majority, but perhaps the absence of same means most people simply haven’t involved themselves in the papers submission process, which may account for the lack of new faces in the Journal authors list. Again, I’m glad Paul has had good experiences but, once more, this perhaps makes me feel piqued that I didn’t!Paul mentions two of his recent papers. In the case of his submission concerning the Alvan Clark refractor (Vol 121 No.2), his own assessment is indeed spot on – it is an account of his own experiences (and not a scientific paper!). He says it depends on objective facts, and that is clearly true, but he did not have to carry out research to determine these and they do not require data analysis to interpret neither do they lead to any new conclusions. Rather than being a scientific paper, the submission is thus just a well-written and very interesting journalistic article [and I here use "just" in a descriptive rather than pejorative sense!]. It is none the worse for being such, of course, and still fully deserves to be published, but not in the papers section of the Journal.His second-mentioned paper, on Uranus, (Vol 121 No.4) is an interesting one, as it is a bit of a hybrid. The first section, on the history of observations, would fall into what I have categorised as "Historical, Bibliography and General Review" papers which, according to the strict rules of definition, do not qualify as scientific papers. The second part, on observing Uranus, seems to me to be no different from the recent JBAA articles on "Observing Basics" so should surely have been published as part of this series rather than being appended to the historical review.Finally, I would agree with Paul that the mix of articles in the Journal is a good one but the desire for a mixture of articles should not be allowed to influence (or even determine) the selection criteria applied to Journal papers.Steve Holmes
Posted by Paul Abel at 18:39 on 2012 Aug 01
Dear Steve,I’ve had a number of papers published in the JBAA and I have to say I have found the process to be both fair and helpful. Two recent papers spring to mind: first the paper I wrote which discusses my experiences of using the Alvan Clark refractor at Flagstaff, Arizona. I think this would fall into your category of personal experience. I think this sort of thing can still be regarded as a paper since, although it involves a subjective experience, that experience depends on objective facts which appear in the paper(like telescope stats, observing details and so on). When I submitted the paper, I got some useful comments back and suggestions which did help tighten it up.More recently I co-authored a paper with Damian Peach about observing Uranus. This was more of a scientific paper. After submission there were some disagreement between the referees and ourselves but these were sorted out in a way which suited everyone and it seemed to me that the referee process was robust produced a result which allowed the paper to be published.Based on these experiences I cannot therefore agree with with your interpretation that the process is not fit for purpose. I also think that the quality of the papers in the JBAA is uniformly good, with a diverse mix appearing the same journal (other journals could do well to see to this!) I think the above suggestion is a good one, and that perhaps is a line of dialogue to explore. Certainly a council discussion of it is a good idea I think.Best wishes,-Paul.
Posted by Richard Miles at 00:11 on 2012 Aug 01
Steve – Gary has suggested raising the matter by writing to the BAA Council.For everyone’s info, I have passed on the details of the discussions on this topic to our Business Secretary Ron Johnson, asking him to table this matter for further discussion at the next appropriate Council meeting. Hopefully you will have seen a bcc copy of my e-mail.Cheers,Richard
Posted by Richard Miles at 22:28 on 2012 Jul 31
Hi Eric,Isn’t the problem not one of a domestic surge but from an electric surge through the ground loop and/or induced currents in conductors when lightning strikes nearby or some other electric storm is taking place?If you have an observatory some distance from the incoming electrical supply then it is good to provide a local earthing point(s) in which the resistance to earth is very low, e.g. a thick conducting metal rod(s) set a couple of feet into the ground, which itself is impregnated below with conducting metal powder that doesn’t oxidise or graphite powder.Also make sure that all kit including the telecope mount casing is earthed.CCD cameras can also be disrupted by induced currents.Richard
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 14:50 on 2012 Jul 27
I think your parenthesised comment is relevant here – it depends entirely on what the report is reporting. Maybe I should have been a little more precise with my terminology earlier – when referring to a "section report" I was really meaning a report of the summary variety (such as those by Richard McKim I mentioned) rather than of the "new data" variety that you seem to be alluding to. A report on new collections of data leading to the production of new or updated light-curves could well fall into the scientific paper category (much as those by Jeremy and his associates clearly do).The real essence of whether a submission is an article or a paper is, as mentioned in my last post, whether it can be validly peer-reviewed. Peer review is the process by which the technical approach; methods; observations; data collection & reduction techniques, and conclusions of the author(s) can be assessed [and, where relevant, to check that the work reported is not falsified or plagiarised]. It therefore follows that if the submission being refereed does not have all or most of these elements it will be difficult to peer-review it. This is why I find it difficult to concede that "summary-type" reports can be regarded as scientific papers in the fullest sense of the word, and why the many "general interest" articles currently classified as papers are certainly not such.As to whether the Forum is the correct place to be discussing these matters, I did of course think long and hard about this. In the end I decided I should "go public" as I felt it was important to solicit the views of the general membership, as they were likely to have a rather more independent view of things than Council members. Also, I could only write from my own experience so I felt it would be helpful to be able to put this into context. Thirdly, based on the uncompromising replies received during my initial attempts at discussion, I was unconvinced that approaching Council would be worthwhile – this might be called pre-judging the case but by this time I was getting rather frustrated by the lack of dialogue! Lastly, it was suggested to me during these interchanges that I should start a Forum topic on the matter, so eventually I did. Maybe not the correct judgement, but those were my reasons.Steve Holmes
Posted by Gary Poyner at 08:47 on 2012 Jul 27
One of my two papers ‘in waiting’ is a VSS section report concerning the Polar Programme I co-ordinate. The paper was refereed by one professional and one amateur astronomer. I would like to think that it is a ‘scientific’ paper as such, as it reports on BAAVSS data on objects which are of interest to the professional community. It also presents data in the form of light curves which is probably not available anywhere else. I think to say that a section report can’t be scientific (depending on it’s original purpose and how it’s presented of course) is a bit unfair on both the Director of the section concerned and the observers who have contributed.Just a final thought from me on this. I wonder if this is the correct place to voice your thoughts on the paper secretary and journal editor, who both do an extremely difficult job exceedingly well. It’s unlikely they will repsond on this forum, so it’s a bit of a one sided debate. Surely a letter to Council would be more appropriate.Just my view!Gary
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 00:40 on 2012 Jul 27
My thanks to Gary and Jeremy for their comments. It’s good to know that accepted norms are being applied in some instances! However, while I am gratified that they have had good experiences with the papers submission process, one might perhaps say that the application of these norms seems somewhat patchy. As previously remarked, my experience was the diametric opposite from theirs: failure to return the full reports to me; no indication that the referees made constructive comments; a slow turn-round for emails, and a totally unhelpful attitude from the Papers Secretary. All of which confirms my view that I have been badly treated and that the questions I posed to the Papers Secretary were entirely justified and worthy of a reply in a professional manner.I would agree with Jeremy that different referees may give different levels of comment if left to their own devices, but there are very clear guidelines for referees out there on the Internet and so there really is no excuse for this sort of inconsistency. Inconsistency in the treatment of authors is equally inexcusable.Moving on to the concept of a "JBAA paper", I am also very appreciative of the mix of articles published and would agree that the Journal is a top-quality publication. This was not my point, however. I was observing that a large percentage of the articles published as JBAA papers should not have been so classified as they do not fall within the definition of a scientific or learned paper. Publish them elsewhere in the Journal by all means but defining what are, in some cases, merely general interest articles as JBAA papers will only serve to debase the whole concept of the Journal Paper as an entity of scientific merit. One should never confuse the roles of referee and proof-reader!On Gary’s specific mention of section reports, while they should clearly form part of the Journal (as they record the extensive work done by many BAA members over a period of time), I would submit that they also are not "scientific papers" in the true sense of the word. The main problem with them is that they are almost impossible to referee: the source data will rarely be available and there is no logical flow of thought process from theory to observation to conclusion. They are simply what they say they are – summary reports of a season’s observations, no more and no less. Their credibility is not improved by an attempt to dress them up as anything else. There is also a great deal of inconsistency in this area, incidentally – for example, can anyone show me the difference between Richard McKim’s paper on Mars in 2005 in Vol.121 No.4 and his essentially identical-in-concept reports on Venus in Vol.121 No.6, Vol.122 No.1 and Vol.122 No.2 ?While researching the background to my comments I performed a review of all items published as JBAA papers over the last few years and worked this up into a document (I almost said "paper"!) in which I analyse their status as "papers" or "non-papers". If anyone is interested I can finish this off and submit it to the Forum so members can have a fuller appreciation of my concerns in this area.Steve Holmes
Posted by Jeremy at 22:21 on 2012 Jul 25
I concur with Garys comments. I have submitted perhaps more than my fair share of papers to JBAA and have always felt the way my papers have been treated has been professional and constructive (and similar to my experience in publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals in a completely different branch of science). What has impressed me most is the willingness of referees to provide constructive advice (criticism?) that has helped me to understand and learn more.The referees are individuals, so the type and level of feedback does vary. Sometimes there are detailed reports, other times they are more brief. And the feedback can come from different angles. Thats the nature of the best.The Papers Secretary and the Editor have always been most helpful in dealing with my papers.Regarding the balance of the Journal I like the mix refereed papers,observing updates, less formal articles and news items. The Journal is the house magazine of our Association as well as providing a venue for publishing the results of original research. Go well!Jeremy
Posted by Gary Poyner at 20:04 on 2012 Jul 25
I have two papers waiting to be published, and in both cases the referees offered constructive advice in all points raised. I received complete detailed reports from both referees, who were experts in the field relative to both papers. The papers secretary was helpful with his advice and quick to respond to e-mails. I have no complaints in this respect.My only gripe is the time it takes to get papers actually published in the Journal (about one year I think), but this means that the BAAJ has a healthy supply of material waiting to be published. A better scenario than not enough!I have no problem at all with the type of paper which gets through for publication. The BAAJ is readable and varied. Many of the papers are section reports and results from original research (just look at the volume of Variable Star reports over the past few years). In my opinion the quality is extremely high. A top quality Journal.Gary
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 19:24 on 2012 Jul 25
Just to draw a line under this one, I eventually received a standard reply of the "thanks for your comments, which have been passed on" sort. Let’s hope the whole saga encourages a more disciplined approach next time!The errors have encouraged me to come up with a better explanation of the phenomena (mis)described, however, which will eventually appear on my website. I am currently working on a magnum opus about the tides – not a straightforward topic!
Posted by David Mottershead at 08:48 on 2012 Jul 23
Many thanks to all who have replied to this thread, and for the information and references provided. I am confident now that the observatory shown on the maps that Roy provided the link for, was indeed the Greg observatory at Quarry Bank Mill – but what was in it and what happened to it I don’t as yet know. I shall keep digging and see what I can find on this specific observatory.I have found a reference book,part of which is previewed online, and which looks like it might have possibilities in this search, (although I need to look through what is online to determine this):http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o-08AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=Escowbeck&source=bl&ots=QdAUICbfwT&sig=TrN4Iuz5OajJQL_ZXc10LOziBr4&hl=en&ei=i4mCS97JKsKRjAf8pYWuCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Escowbeck&f=falseAgain, many thanks to all for their assistance and contributions so far.
Posted by Nick James at 21:37 on 2012 Jul 22
I see Jeremy got there before me. I’ll read page 2 of the comments next time!Nick.
