Forum der Vereinigung der Sternfreunde

Hi Robin! What is the data policy of the ARAS Nova Delphini campaign? Is it only Steve Shore in Pisa who will work on it? Will he reduce the data by himself? What is the final goal with respect to physics? What about publications? Will all observers be co-authors?

When starting observations at Teide we contribute a significant amount of telescope time from our Teide run and it would be good to know what is our benefit.

Cheers, Thomas

Hi Thomas,

Steve Shore is acting as unofficial PI spending a lot of time supporting the
amateurs but the data are all public and the policy on usage is on the page
with the spectra.

"Note there is a first level validation check prior to adding spectra to
this table. Users should verify the quality of the spectra with the
observers concerned.
Use of these data in research publications is encouraged subject to the
following conditions:
* The observers concerned should be contacted to confirm the particular
acquisition and data reduction procedures used.
* Observers contributing a significant amount of data or whose data are
pivotal to the findings of the paper should be included as co-authors."

It is the standard ARAS policy based on the one I developed for the amateur
eps Aur campaign. This has proved to be a very successful way of generating
amateur support and getting more amateurs trained up in spectroscopy.

Provided it does not compromise the WR campaign my view would be that it can
be up to the individuals concerned if they agee to their data to be used in
this way but if someone does not get the data then it is science (ie all of
us) that loses.

Cheers
Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Eversberg
To: fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:04 PM
Subject: [fg-spek] Nova Delphini


Zitat:
An Eshel spectrum of Nova Del 2013 could be very useful tonight as it seems
many observers in France may be clouded out which risks a break in our
continuous amateur coverage at high resolution. (I will hopefully observe
with my LHIRES tonight but I cannot cover all wavelengths. Spectra to date
(over 300) can be found here.
http://www.astrosurf.com/aras/Aras_Data ... l-2013.htm
and this thread can be monitored to see what observations are currently
being made in ~real time
http://www.spectro-aras.com/forum/viewt ... 683&p=2806
Spectra can be sent to Francois Teyssier.

Cheers
Robin


Hi Robin! What is the data policy of the ARAS Nova Delphini campaign? Is it
only Steve Shore in Pisa who will work on it? Will he reduce the data by
himself? What is the final goal with respect to physics? What about
publications? Will all observers be co-authors?

When starting observations at Teide we contribute a significant amount of
telescope time from our Teide run and it would be good to know what is our
benefit.

Cheers, Thomas





-------------------- m2f --------------------

FG Spektroskopie Mailingliste

Sie finden dieses Thema im Forum unter:
http://spektroskopieforum.vdsastro.de/v ... 4129#24129

-------------------- m2f --------------------

Hi Thomas,
As you know when an event like this comes along you have to work on the fly.
If you read Steve Shore's comments on the ARAS forum eg

"I'll repeat, ad nauseum, that what you are producing is a legacy of
depth and range we've never had before. Please don't get discouraged
or tired. I'm writing this as the dawn breaks over Pisa thinking of
all of you and I promise to explain more (as I'd previously promised)
about the origin of the binares in this state.
"

It is clear he believes that what we have acheived so far surpasses the
spectroscopic coverage of any previous nova in the optical, in terms of
completeness. Something that amateurs are uniquely in a position to do

Cheers
Robin

Well, this is an entire different data policy compared to our WR run together with many professionals. Every single contribution results in a co-authorship not only significant contributions (whatever this is). Our whole campaign foundation is based on equal rights (theoretically that would mean that ALL Teide observers should be co-authors in case of significant contribution). I hesitate to take our policy into doubt taking away time allocated to our prime targets. Remember, we agreed to focus on additional targets for our PI Noel (an LBV and an O hypergiant) but skipped them for our WRs when experiencing technical problems.

When organizing our run I have been confronted with similar concerns vice versa from our ARAS colleagues (different data policy). I have nothing against taking Nova Del spectra but only if we can complete our main goal, as Noel said.

Cheers, Thomas

Thomas,

Of course the WR campaign should be compromised, we are all agreed. (I already made this clear)

Nova Del is not an "ARAS campaign" They merely coordinated the collection of spectra, contacted a friendly pro advice on data acquistion and reduction and publicised the need for observations among amateurs worldwide who have responded. Had they not done so, (and no other amateur group did) we would not now have the data and noone would be asking for assistance from the WR team.

I agree that the WR campaign is run in a completely different way, for understandable reasons but Nova Del is not part of the WR campaign.

Cheers
Robin

----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Eversberg (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
To: fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:38 PM
Subject: [fg-spek] Re: Nova Delphini observations at Teide



Well, this is an entire different data policy compared to our WR run together with many professionals. Every single contribution results in a co-authorship not only significant contributions (whatever this is). Our whole campaign foundation is based on equal rights (theoretically that would mean that ALL Teide observers should be co-authors in case of significant contribution). I hesitate to take our policy into doubt taking away time allocated to our prime targets. Remember, we agreed to focus on additional targets for our PI Noel (an LBV and an O hypergiant) but skipped them for our WRs when experiencing technical problems.

When organizing our run I have been confronted with similar concerns vice versa from our ARAS colleagues (different data policy). I have nothing against taking Nova Del spectra but only if we can complete our main goal, as Noel said.

Cheers, Thomas

That should read "Of course the WR campaign should NOT be compromised...." of course

Robin

----- Original Message ----- From: Robin Leadbeater (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
To: fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:58 PM
Subject: [fg-spek] Re: Nova Delphini observations at Teide



Thomas,

Of course the WR campaign should be compromised, we are all agreed. (I already made this clear)

Hi Thomas, Robin & RoW,

I suggest to operate under "WR13x-IAC80-collaboration" when transfering Nova data to ARAS database. So everyone involved in the campaign is author.

Regards,
Thomas

Nova data by Daniel and Ted transfered to Montreal. They can be found in 20130817, 20130818 and 20130819.

Thanks und good luck w/ reduction. I'm curious about it.
Thomas

Hi Thomas,

are these spectra also created with my eShel spectrograph? If no, I would not be able to reduce them:-(

Cheers berthold

Hi Berthold,

Of course, yes. No one dismantled the eshel and plugged another spectrograph. By the way, the number of spectrographs at IAC80 is very limited

Cheers,
Thomas

Hi all! Don't forget, the WR 134, WR 135 and WR 137 are our prime targets for the campaign. We highly appriciate if they remain the prime and not nova del. The nova is only observed at Teide because it does not disturb our WR run. So, for all supporters: Don't change the prime target!

Cheers, Thomas

Ich nochmal,


Weitere Untersuchungen ergeben erstaunlich hohe Abweichungen der Position der Spektren auf dem Chip. Das kann nicht an dem Spektrographen selbst liegen! Sehr seltsam!


Am 17.8.2013 = X 828 Y 892
23.8.2013 = X. 834. Y 897
29.8.2013 = X 757(!) Y 900


Das sind ziemlich extreme Werte und eigentlich nicht Sinn eines fasergekoppelten Spektrographen.





Herzlicher Gruss Berthold

Am 30.08.2013 um 18:36 schrieb Thomas Hunger <fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)>:

Hallo Berhold,

ich hatte, wegen des Ausleseproblems, das Datenkabel zwischen CCD und Wandler gewechselt. Dabei ist mir aufgefallen, dass die CCD eigentlich gar nicht fest mit dem Objektiv verschraubt ist. Da genügt eine Berührung des Tisches um die zu verstellen. Das hätte vllt. etwas besser gelöst werden können.

Gruss,
DS


Am 31.08.2013 19:23, schrieb Berthold Stober:

_________________
Daniel P. Sablowski

https://www.kunstmann.de/buch/axel_hack ... 42000/t-2/
https://dpsablowski.wordpress.com
https://github.com/DPSablowski
https://www.aip.de/mitglieder/dsablowski/

Hallo,


ich erinnere mich jetzt nicht mehr, wie das gemacht war, immerhin habe ich während der ganzen Betriebszeit des Spektrographen, die ich den hatte nie mehr als eine Abweichung von 1oder 2. pixel beobachtet, auch wurden niemals diese zerfledderten Daten ausgelesen.




Na gut, das kann man jetzt nicht mehr ändern, auch als Lothar mit mir oben war, haben wir diese Verschiebungen nie gehabt in diesem Ausaß schon gar nicht. Ziemlich seltsam!


Ein Schwachpunkt ist allerdings die mangelhaft ausgeführte Mechanik diese Canonobjektives, weil die nun tatsächlich nicht spielfrei ist. Ist halt kein Zeissobjektiv. Ich habe zwar so eines, aber das ist optisch nicht so gut, weil der Farblängsfehler bei dem Ding größer ist. Besser vermutlich ist wohl nur das asphärische 1:2/90 von Leitz oder welche Öffnungszahl das Objektiv auch hat

Herzlicher Gruss Berthold

Am 31.08.2013 um 19:46 schrieb Daniel Sablowski <fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)>:

Berthold, Daniel! Please remember again that this is the ConVento thread. Do not send messages in German. This is spam for most readers!

Thomas

Nova is now faint about 7mag, but with today's seeing of ~0,35"(!) we overexposed Ha at 90s. So we also took 60s exposures. Amazing light-machine...

Yes Thomas,


I remarked the same yesterday . The Nova becomes rather week. But in the overview I saw no dramatic changes in the h alpha emission.

Berthold

Am 04.09.2013 um 04:22 schrieb Thomas Hunger <fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)>:

Hello everybody,

I have analyzed the Nova spectra from Aug 17 to Sep 3, 12 spectra of good quality. Since nobody objected to Thomas suggestion, I have sent them to Francois Teyssier for adding them to the ARAS database You will be able to look at them soon here:
http://www.astrosurf.com/aras/Aras_Data ... l-2013.htm
I also upload them to the Montreal server in a folder NovaDel2013, together with the calibration and configuration files.

Thank you, Noel Richardson and Thomas Eversberg for giving time to the observation of the Nova and let them being published in the public database of our french colleagues. It looks like the collaboration of french and german amateur spectroscopists is improving, despite some differences in the approach how to process spectra. For the improvement of quality I think it is a good idea to compare our spectra with those of different observers and the Nova gives us a good opportunity for that.
Here the latest spectrum of Sep. 3 and a comparison with a different instrument by Thierry Lemoult, taken around the same time. The difference in the two spectra is mainly in the continuum level. This is difficult in echelle spectra, as many orders are merged. Also some problems with the optical alignment of the calibration light path of our echelle made the correct determinati0on of the instrument response very difficult. Three hours difference between recording the Nova and the reference zet Aql at a different altitude may also contribute. But this can be corrected easily by comparison with a well normalized low resolution spectrum. The comparison of the H-alpha region shows mainly the difference in altitude of the two observatories with their different H2O level. Interesting also the double peak which is also seen in H-beta and H-gamma.

Thanks also to Daniel and Thomas and their crews for recording the spectra in very high quality.

Regards, Martin

I looked at the spectra and could find only a few pixels (< 10) shift between Aug 17 and Sep 03, your data from aug 29 is probably a readout error, which still happens from time to time! Before that the position was slightly different because the camera rotation angle had been adjusted. No problem for the analysis of the spectra though. Except for an occasional correction of the spectrum position nothing has been changed in the configuration for the processing of the spectra. Surprising after the complaints of the poor fixing of the Canon lens to the spectrograph.

Regards, Martin

Hi team,

Good news regarding our IAC80 contributions to Nova Del 2013: they are considered in a recent professional publication

http://www.astrosurf.com/aras/novae/Doc ... 339Del.pdf

Personally, I'm happy w/ our past decisions to spend observing time and to publish the measurements in the ARAS database. Finally, I'm a little bit proud.

Best regards,
Thomas

Hi Thomas!

Nice to see this result and most of us might be proud about the achievement. However, I see more aspects than having anonymous data in a paper where no reader but only the participants know their origin. Not a single Teide team member is in the authors list... That is the result of these databases. We all invested a lot of effort and money and our data are taken without reference. Quite frankly: This is very bad! I do not need more papers in my publication list, but it is important to refer to others who have no paper, yet, e.g., young participants.

I stop here not to get too frustrated.

Thomas

Hello Thomas,

I think you have missed the point of why most amateurs do this sort of work. You can contact the authors direct to understand the situation better of course but I think you will find that the specific spectra extracted from the ARAS database and used for this paper were those taken by the co-authors and I congratulate them. (Not every spectrum taken produces new science worth publishing)

The authors followed the agreed guidelines for use of the data ( which I remember I made clear at the time) and they have included a general acknowledgement of all contributors to the database regardless of whether their spectra were used for this paper. What is the alternative? That nobody takes spectra unless they are guaranteed to contain something worth publishing? It was only because of the extensive coverage by many amateurs, helped by Dr Steve Shore that the particular spectra crucial to the findings of the paper were taken.

I understand it is disappointing that your spectra (and mine and many other contributors) were not useful in this particular case but they could have been.
Everyone's spectra are still there as a permanent public resource for anyone to analyse and there may quite possibly be more science to be extracted from them and more papers to be written, perhaps even using the Convento data

Cheers
Robin

Hi Robin,

I am not so sure that I missed the point of amateur willingness to contribute such data. But you remember that this was not an amateur campaign but ProAm. This with an emphasis on “pro” because we entirely worked like pros. This also includes the publication procedures because the campaign is only finished with a published paper.

These spectra have been taken from a dedicated WR campaign which required a lot of effort for all of us, including the participating professionals. We kindly agreed to take Nova Del spectra besides our main goal (covering our target stars). The whole campaign had a professional attitude with professional (upcoming = need for publications) young astronomers (here Emily Aldoretta and Noel Richardson) and other youngsters (especially the schoolboys and students). We had a clear ProAm agreement with Emily and Noel. When we all agreed we expected the fundamental and scientifically historical attitude that even a single spectrum will result in a co-authorship. I learned the importance of this professional behavior during my time as a pro. If no Teide data have been taken for these spectra, I apologize for being upset (my general procedure description remains valid). But that is not clear from the paper which explicitly takes WR13x into account. And finally, the Montreal team introduced the whole idea/campaign.

Quite frankly: I consider this behavior as not very kind. I read some very harsh statements about the WR13x campaign and explicit complains about how the pros deliver information about their reduction process. And now I learn that our campaign is taken as a reference without even mentioning these colleagues. I quote a team member: “If we obtain the needed WR data each night (3x each star), then we could take a nova spectrum.” Ok, we all appreciated the individual effort and the campaign management agreed. Seeing this result that uses but doesn’t adequately name contributors is really… (I better keep my mouth shut) to the younger-career scientists involved. The alternative? Quite easy: We take our campaign data and nothing else. I quote another team member: “We are WR13x and that is it”. Robin, I do not organize campaigns under such circumstances. Data contributions must be appreciated in a standard scientific manner.

Again, meanwhile I do not bother if I find myself on a paper. But as a campaign manager I have to take care for all my participants.

Cheers, Thomas

hi Thomas,

Nova Del was never part of the WR campaign. The Nova Del spectra were taken in spare telescope time and placed on a public database with the full knowledge and agreement of the PI and campaign members. These spectra (and many hundred others in the database) were not used in this particular paper. I see no problem with what has happened and have heard no other objections, either from this team or from other contributors to the database who's data was not used. If you have an issue I suggest you take it up with the first author of the paper but he might be surprised to be contacted by a team who he has probably never heard of and who's data he did not even use, asking for co-author status

Robin

Hi Robin,
As I said, we have taken Nova Del spectra, they have been contributed to the ARAS database under the name WR13x. This name now appears in the paper and I have good reasons to ask if these data are coming from our campaign.
If you talk about Teide then you are not correct. We had no "spare time" but a dedicated run after a dedicated professional application at IAC. If we generously take and contribute Nova spectra, then under our respective name WR13x. This name is in the paper but no participant of the WR13x run (or only those who take this very name for their contribution).

Not under the condition that the contributors are not mentioned in the paper.
Why can I then find our campaign name in the data list?
Well, I complain, and I am a team member, right? And I do it on behalf of others.
Yes, this will probably happen. But I am sorry, if I would be the paper PI I would certainly ask for detailed information about the data origin. Either he did not do it or a co-author from the amateur side simply used the campaign name.

Why should we all spend our time and money into such an approach if our contribution is not appreciated or our name mis-used?

I rest my case.

Thomas

I appologise Thomas, I was wrong. There are indeed several WR13x spectra listed in
table 2 but there is no description of the Teide observatory setup under
section 2 - observations. Unless these particular spectra were crucial to
the findings, the conditions of use of spectra in the ARAS database
(which I described when we were discussing whether to take the spectra) have
still been met but the main author should have at least contacted the WR13x
team to discuss the quality of the spectra and how best to acknowledge the
team.

Cheers
Robin

Well, Robin, we can only hope that somebody from the French side and/or from the paper author's list reads our discussion. I think only such controveries illuminate the potentail problems with a public database. Thanks for it.

Thomas

I wrote an email to the paper PI Augustin Skopal.

I got a first email from Augustin Skopal to Francois Teyssier (me in CC):

1. To avoid such possible misunderstanding in future, he suggests to improve the ARAS web page with an information on how to contact the observers.
2. The paper is already published.

Our Teide data are indeed in the database (see http://www.astrosurf.com/aras/Aras_Data ... l-2013.htm) indicated as coming from IAC80_Teide. It seems that the pros did not take care by themself but entirely relied on the organizers of the database. They however, did not realize the potential problems with making available the data to everybody.

It confirms my concern at the very beginning of this thread... That is not good!

Thomas

Hi Thomas

The contact email address for the database (Francois Teyssier) is on the database page and the conditions for use are there too

Use of these data in research publications is encouraged subject to the following conditions:
* The observers concerned should be contacted to confirm the particular acquisition and data reduction procedures used.
* Observers contributing should be aknowledged
* Observers contributing a significant amount of data or whose data are pivotal to the findings of the paper should be included as co-authors.


There was apparently no problem contacting the other observers and Francois is a co-author so it is not clear to me why Augustin Skopal did not have the necessary contact details.

In future though I plan to add my contact details as a comment in the fits header of spectra I publish to avoid such a problem.

Despite this accreditation problem though the public database was still a success as the spectra were used and some science done which would not otherwise have been the case. At the end of the day this is the reason we make the measurements.

Cheers
Robin

Yes Robin, I already sent the guidelines to Augustin. It remains a mystery why our data have been taken without reference. The ARAS guidelines haven't been followed, the data have been used and the Teide observations haven't been listed in the paper. Hence, the author's list misses at least 28 observers. From my experience, this is not a matter of misunderstanding but a matter of the paper PI. He or she is in charge and always the first address to contact, not the co-authors. Even if Francois liberally took our data (which is not ok), it is up to the PI to double-check the issue. Until now I even did not receive any apology. I must admit, that makes me upset.
Indeed, that remains an open question.
Good idea. For me, though, I will not agree again delivering any data where I am involved with.
I am not so sure about that. Success (for those on the paper, not for the Teide people, right?) does not depend on data freely downloadable for anybody. It is also possible to make a jpg copy of the fits-file and then data are only delivered on request.

Please understand my point, very early I focused on this very point to warn others (see me entry here in 26. August 2013, 21:38:01). And now I (and my team, especially the pros) am the victim of this very procedure. This situation is somewhat bizarr: A number of observers want to support the and work in the professional domain but still act like amateurs. For me as a person in charge for others with less expertise this is entirely unacceptable. As long as ARAS does not reliably improve this procedure I am out for any ARAS database contribution in the future.

Cheers, Thomas

To highlight the importance of this issue, we have to realize the following:

Not only have they made a clear discrimination by including some amateurs as co-authors but not others, the Teide campaign obtained observation time under specific circumstances. That means they have also discriminated the IAC observatory and institute by publishing a paper which should have had but does not have 1. an IAC-affiliated author, or 2. an acknowledgement to the IAC facilities. This is a serious matter. As a result, it might well be that we do not get any telescope time at Teide anymore.

What a mess.

Thomas Eversberg wrote: Hello Thomas,

As an outside observer (I was not involved in the Teide campaign), I
fully understand your frustration and the general dilemma. What I wanted
to stress is that the Teide campaign was not granted to observe Nova
Del, but the WR stars. So, my feeling is that your chances of future
proposals for Teide telescope time should mainly depend upon the
publication of the WR results. The Nova Del issue should be of secondary
importance in this respect, I think. Of course, I fully agree that it
would have been helpful for future applications if the authors of the
Nova Del paper had done their job properly. But I guess there were
several misunderstandings here that led to this unfortunate situation.
Just to let you know (this has nothing to do with the Teide campaign of
course), I have submitted the Oe paper to A&A on Monday. As soon as I
hear from the referee, I'll let you know.

Cheers,

Gregor

Thanks for this encouragement, Gregor. As you know, we have to consider many side-aspects including amateurs, professionals and the instiute, as well as respective standard procedures. We have been guests at IAC and need to follow their guidelines as we have to follow those of the ARAS database. In any case, that's the situation and we need to accept it. I hope, we all learn from that.

Great that this Mons paper is submitted! We all appreciate your efforts. BTW: I registered to the Potsdam WR conference next year and submitted a talk about ProAm activities in both hemispheres.

Cheers, Thomas

Hi Thomas,

before commenting the discussion: What could happen, if no one of us got notice of that paper? My answer: nothing special. Only the very detailled and uninvolved reader might ask: what is WR13x-collaboration? I guess that's all because the reader won't contact the main author asking for an explanation.
But the thing got obvious...

Thomas, you are basically right. Taking the data w/o any further comment and acknolegment in the paper is a scientific mistake. The paper needs a suitable errata. This is a clear must!

Internal: Our Nova observations never reduced the observations on WR targets. So our main science program was never at risk! That was the deal we all agreed on. Remember, we lost significant time dealing w/ strange topics like focus loss etc. That's why I guess to stay cool at his point. The incorrect use of our data is not our mistake! This should be clear for everyone, especially when thinking about new proposals.

Regards,
Thomas