Forum der Vereinigung der Sternfreunde

Dong! Your stuff is excellent. It seems you are not a beginner anymore. Please continue.

Thomas

Hello dear Thomas:

Thank you very much for your warm encouragement! I am to do all my best continually.

Ever yours,

Dong . Li

Hi all:

I am not sure if maybe I also catch the little hump in the Ha. Please see the following fresh spectra.

PS. the setup is : C11; Lhires3 with 2400l; 23um slit; 285CCD set to -45℃

Dong

Hi Dong,

very nice spectra. Congratulations! The hump you see on H-alpha looks to me like a water line. Try to remove the water lines from your spectra (easily done with ISIS) and see if the hump disappears. Depending on the radial velocity of the H-alpha (and the humidity and elevation of the star) the water lines are more or less prominent.

Best wishes for the New Year to everybody,

Martin

My dried spectra, 4 x30min, on 30 December.

Cheers, Bernard

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

Hello,

here a first elaboration of the profile from yesterday. I am however still
are not satisfied.

Siegfried

Wish you a Happy New Year!

Hi Martin:

Happy New Year~

Yes, you are right, Sunday's night when I took spectra, Orion was located at meridian, but the humidity was 103%. But ago when it comes to the meridian, usually the humidity is very little. Maybe this is the reason why there is a little water-hump appearing in the Ha.

I have taken your advice to try to remove water by ISIS, but it seems that I can not get it. Could you try my data on your PC to see what it will be?

Cheers,

Dong

Hi all,

I am not actually participating in the campaign but the chatter in the group is quite distracting currently so I have suggestion

As Thierry and Christian have already pointed out, it is very difficult to diagnose these sorts of issues with just graphics of the spectra. If Otmar is willing, I suggest all amateur spectra, (reduced to BeSS standard with the headers correctly filled) are submitted to the VdS database where we can all analyse them.

http://spektroskopie.fg-vds.de/data.htm

Cheers
Robin

Hi Robin!

Using a database is convenient, of course. However, I see some issues which should be considered before following your suggestion.

• 1. In dedicated campaigns of intermediate time lengths (e.g., WR 140, delta Ori and WR 134-137) we have a principle investigator (PI) who gets the data for a final and detailed data reduction, investigation and publication. In the present case this are Tony and Noel (right?).

• 2. The campaign idea is somewhat exclusive and specific preparation work is invested. Hence, the PI normaly has access priority and in return guarantees co-authorship to all observers.

• 3. Everybody who delivers spectra is entirely free to do with them what he/she desires, of course. But the PI should know that in advance.

Now, the amateur databases are public and everybody has data access. This is in contradiction to 2. In science this is solved by a waiting period of about one year. For long-term campaigns with BESS this might be different but here we have a more focused campaign scheme.

I do not know what Tony and Noel prefer but before making the data available to everybody we should discuss it with them. Science is a competitive business, especially for PhDs and post-docs. We should keep this in mind.

Cheers and happy new year, Thomas

Hi Thomas:

PI is primarily Noel now. I?m mainly just a facilitator and advisor, like you. He will handle the merging of all the data for del Ori in the next few weeks and WR134/135/137 during the coming (northern) summer.

Your ideas about proprietary rights to data are correct, although of course there is no ?law? to enforce them. It?s more or less by gentleman?s agreement. But one thing is sure: to get the most out of the data and all the work that everyone has invested here, it?s best to have one person in charge of combining all the data into one big uniform package. One data source alone will not do the job. The combined data set will turn out to be greater than the simple sum of the individual parts. But in the final publication, we are all co-authors.

I hope this is clear from my perspective and that everyone agrees with this strategy.

Best to all for 2013!

Tony


From: Thomas Eversberg (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:01 PM
To: fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Subject: [fg-spek] Re: Request for observations of the 2mag star delta Orionis




Hi Robin!

Using a database is convenient, of course. However, I see some issues which should be considered before following your suggestion.

• 1. In dedicated campaigns of intermediate time lengths (e.g., WR 140, delta Ori and WR 134-137) we have a principle investigator (PI) who gets the data for a final and detailed data reduction, investigation and publication. In the present case this are Tony and Noel (right?).

• 2. The campaign idea is somewhat exclusive and specific preparation work is invested. Hence, the PI normaly has access priority and in return guarantees co-authorship to all observers.

• 3. Everybody who delivers spectra is entirely free to do with them what he/she desires, of course. But the PI should know that in advance.

Now, the amateur databases are public and everybody has data access. This is in contradiction to 2. In science this is solved by a waiting period of about one year. For long-term campaigns with BESS this might be different but here we have a more focused campaign scheme.

I do not know what Tony and Noel prefer but before making the data available to everybody we should keep this in mind and discuss it with them. Science is a competitive business, especially for PhDs and post-docs. We should keep this in mind.

Cheers and happy new year, Thomas

_________________
Tony Moffat

Hi Thomas,

Perhaps this part of database could be restricted to Convento members somehow.

collecting all the data and then doing the analysis after the fact is of course the standard procedure among professionals and is not an issue if all contributors are experienced and guaranteed capable of producing reliable data but in this case (as in most Pro-Am campaigns) there are experienced observers and beginners. If the beginners are not guided carefully and able to directly compare their spectra with more experienced contributors to verify their data are reliable, their contribution will potentially be at best worthless and at worst misleading. In my experience it is better to resolve these issues as far as possible in real time so that the less experienced observers can improve their techniques rather than them continung to produce potentially flawed data and trying to unravel the problems after the fact.

Only when simultaneous spectra from different observers can be overlaid exactly can we be sure that the results are reliable. This can only be done realistically if the fits files are distributed somehow. Even contributors posting the fits with their graphics would be a start

Cheers
Robin

I find this current discussion of real interest as I have often puzzled over the conflicting needs of amateurs wanting to discuss and learn from their results and a PI's presumed desire for confidentiality until published. There is a bit of a 'Catch 22' situation here as without the ability to exchange experiences I believe many in the already small pool of amateurs would be a lot less interested in participating in pro-am collaborations. It still isn't clear to me if Tony and Noel would have preferred that we didn't post our spectral results and/or, as Robin suggested, access to this group by 'outsiders' should have been made more difficult.

Cheers, Bernard

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

Hi Robin & Bernard!

I am entirely with you. This issue is indeed highly interesting and important to discuss. In addition, it is important for the professionals, too.

How can amateurs learn best although they send their data to a black reduction box (the PI)?
How can they exchange and discuss their data for procedure improvement and learning benefit.
How can we guarantee such important benefits for potential future ProAm campaigns?

The data announcement in public is no problem, so far. I consider this as a great PR action for amateur skills.
Yes, we could restrict webspace for team members but can't keep everybody else away. Amateurs get potentially excited by seeing our great campaign results, right? Difficult to solve...

Tony, Noel, what do you think about this problem?

Thomas

Hello Thomas et al.:

My feeling here is that at least for the current del Ori campaign things have gone pretty well. The observing requirements were clearly laid out. Observers have shown us a selection of their results, inviting comments, which have been made. Short of actually redoing the whole reduction procedure from scratch by another independent observer, this seems like a good way to do it. It has led to corrections and improvements, that otherwise might not have been made. In any case, the PI Noel Richardson will now patch everything together to the best of his ability. For this, as Noel has stated, he needs the original data as well as the reduced data, so that he can follow up on any problems that might occur in this process. The great advantage of this is that one skilled person will have the overview of all the data and will be best equipped to extract the most information.

This should in no way throttle any open discussion at any time about any aspect of the program! All comments are welcome for discussion. I welcome feedback on what I have stated above.

Best to all, Tony


From: Thomas Eversberg (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:38 AM
To: fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Subject: [fg-spek] Re: Request for observations of the 2mag star delta Orionis




Hi Robin & Bernard!

I am entirely with you. This issue is indeed highly interesting and important to discuss. In addition, it is important for the professionals, too.

How can amateurs learn best although they send their data to a black reduction box (the PI)?
How can they exchange and discuss their data for procedure improvement and learning benefit.
How can we guarantee such important benefits for potential future ProAm campaigns?

The data announcement in public is no problem, so far. I consider this as a great PR action for amateur skills.
Yes, we could restrict webspace for team members but can't keep everybody else away. Amateurs get potentially excited by seeing our great campaign results, right? Difficult to solve...

Tony, Noel, what do you think about this problem?

Thomas

_________________
Tony Moffat

OK, Tony! Is here then no actual problem at all? Is showing a data selection the solution? Do we waive the idea of a public database for such dedicated campaigns? Do I exaggerate with my comments?

Thomas

Hi Thomas:

I really don?t know. I have expressed my opinion. Let?s wait for more input from others (if any).

Tony

From: Thomas Eversberg (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:31 AM
To: fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Subject: [fg-spek] Re: Request for observations of the 2mag star delta Orionis




OK, Tony! Is here then no actual problem at all? Is showing a data selection the solution? Do we waive the idea of a public database for such dedicated campaigns? Do I exaggerate with my comments?

Thomas

_________________
Tony Moffat

Hello,
to the end of the campaign, I can still provide a good profile!

Siegfried

Hi, I wish to comment on this aspect of tackling the data access in ProAm campaigns..- I believe the amateurs want access to data from each other in this phase of acquisition, with no intent of being part of the same competition that affects professionals.
- The professionals do not want the data do be accessible to "the outside" competition for "some time"..
- Although it is nice to have one thing called a "database", BeSS or another may have the "slight" problem of being freely accessible during this "some time", thus not fitting quite well on the professional's requirements (in a strict interpretation of this).
- In my view, the only alternative to strictly respect these "requirements" is to have another database (or the same database with some access restrictions on data for a given period) where only the people involved in the campaign have access to. This way, amateurs with access can learn, and amateurs outside will not learn from this. Amateurs in the outside will have to learn from other targets, and other discussions outside this communication channel. It would be a database only for the campaign.
- Another consequence is that amateurs outside the campaign cannot become motivated by real-time results coming out of the campaign, and thus not join in while the campaign is running.
- professionals outside the campaign (also defined as "competition", even if from a different research field) will not have access to this data, by this way of thinking.
If the problem behind all this is the definition of "who is the competition", the problem might become simpler to tackle. I believe BeSS philosophy implies that "competition = empty_set", and apparently professionals that organize campaigns to specifically tackle an issue are saying it is not an "empty set". Perhaps large digital sky surveys define "competition = empty_set" as well, and people writing papers to peer reviewed conferences may disagree..



I am implying with this idea that when setting up a future campaign, a database would be set-up as well, and then when the campaign ends, perhaps the data can be transferred to a public database, or only the observers who wish to make their data public, can act in that way (most of us, I guess)...

I know some people would NOT like their data to be "strictly private" forever.. In my view, it is not a choice for them to make if the campaign imposes (or strongly suggests) that the data should be kept out of the public before it's ending... If the campaign is set up in a way that all data is public since the day of acquisition, the problem vanishes. Once the campaign finishes (by a definition of "finish" that the PI must specify), the "embargo" on the data ends as well.


Personally, I have a great fear that if the data I produce is only looked at in the end by someone in the know, at a time when I can no longer be helpful in improving my data-acquisition. If this happens, I will have a feeling of being a "wasted asset", and likely be demotivated in joining future campaigns due to lack of confidence on my own skills..


We amateurs like "live previews", with webcams, and real-time imaging with all that neat data, to know our current progress in the current objective of "providing reliable data to any professional", for instance.. We do not need the data to understand it in real time, we need it only to see where to improve on the technique, and we need it to "wave back at us" in an appealing way so as to keep us motivated in improving our technique..  If we also learn to interpret what we observe, that is even more motivating!!

But we also know that short exposures and webcams do not give good quality images, and likely no "final result".. The same also happens to data, where only at the end the complete picture is known.. Someone may be getting a PhD with all this data, but see us (amateurs) as the MSc students acquiring the data!.. We do not want our MSc supervisor to look at what we have done only when someone else starts writing chapter IV of his PhD..



So, realistically, I think that "data storage" during the campaign should be given a though before a campaign starts. Only those that are inside the campaign can discuss problems specifically related to that data. Ideally, I would like the data to be free to the public, but I also would like there to be peace in the world, and no economic crisis, etc.. If that matches the requirements of the real world, "great!" If not, it simply won't work, no matter what! Pragmatic and simple. Amateurs inside the campaign could peek at will in the database. Professionals could also check the quality to make sure the target star looks OK, and that any correctable mistake can be detected and corrected. I consider this "very important".



The only reason that amateurs outside this campaign might want access to data and discussions here, is because these problems are being discussed here by other knowledgeable amateurs. If this also happens outside, there will be no need on the data that we are gathering. Unless, the outside amateur is trying to also do something on the same star, and if so, he should be in the campaign in the first place as well. This is my view. Of course I may want to post a neat plot of a work-in-progress spectrum on facebook or twitter, and by this definition of things, by default I cannot. I think this is a price to pay when participating on "someone else's" project (the PI's project). If the outside amateur is not in the campaign because he did not agree with the data policy, than he should discuss any details with the PI before any other person inside the campaign)


There is some parallel in the computer business with software: opensource, proprietary software and shareware, etc.. It's like someone making a useful software that people can use.. If someone has access to the source code, he can improve on that and "steal" the business...


Cheers,


Fil.



On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Tony Moffat <fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)> wrote:

--
Fil.

_________________
Fil.

Here are my short coverage (30min x2) spectra for 2 Jan.

Cheers, Bernard

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

While the open publication of jpg spectra images will certainly reveal some degree of information I would suspect that to be of real value to a 'competitor' they would really need the full set of FIT data files. If that is the case ... I'm just surmising ... then a compromise solution to our dilemma is to only give the PI access to our amateur FIT files.

Cheers, Bernard


[quote="Thomas Eversberg"]OK, Tony! Is here then no actual problem at all? Is showing a data selection the solution? Do we waive the idea of a public database for such dedicated campaigns? Do I exaggerate with my comments?

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

Additionally, to only posting jpg images, we could leave off critical data such as (mea culpa) the accurate times of exposure.

Bernard

[quote="Bernard Heathcote"]While the open publication of jpg spectra images will certainly reveal some degree of information I would suspect that to be of real value to a 'competitor' they would really need the full set of FIT data files. If that is the case ... I'm just surmising ... then a compromise solution to our dilemma is to only give the PI access to our amateur FIT files.

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

I wrongly labelled my blue spectra time (just to confuse the enemy ) as 2.540, while it should have been 2.520 .. sorry, but apparently I can't edit the image I posted.

Bernard


[quote="Bernard Heathcote"]Here are my short coverage (30min x2) spectra for 2 Jan.

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

New observations of delta Ori by using Lhires III 2400 l/mm spectrographs.

December 30.98 from Valérie Desnoux observatory on its
observatory in Paris city (very near Eiffel tower!). Celestron 9 telescope, Lhires III 35 microns slit and
Atik460EX CCD camera. Not an ideal nigth (clouds) bu sufficient for
detect a peculiar Halpha shape.

January 1.88 from Valérie Desnoux observatory (better conditions).

January 2.83 from my observatory (Castanet, near Toulouse large city south of France). Note the high signal
to noise, measured at 500. The setup is a Celestron 11 + Lhires III
2400 l/mm 35 microns slit and excellent Atik460EX camera
used in bin 2x2 mode. 9 x 300 sec. exposure. The spectral
calibration error is evaluated to +/- 400 m/s only.

Amateurs AND professionnels can download FITS data from
my public campaign page:

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/campaign/deltaori/obs.htm

(two forms are proposed for FITS spectra files)

I am very motivated to participate in this type of campaign, but I am also a pure amateur,
I do not work for any institute / observatory in particular For me it is logical and
normal to make public and visible yours amateurs observations as soon as possible for a max. reactivity. My goal is to motivate a maximum
of observers and facilitate exchanges between experts and non-experts, not participate in a private operations, less open, more confidential.

I am sure that a spectral database, at the image of AAVSO, is the ideal form for the future, also for professionals (ideally professionnals suggest campaigns idea, propose observational protocol, define observation
period, but take formated data in
a global (ideally) and public spectro database).

Of course professionals can name in their paper the main amateurs contributors. It is the suggested policy for user of BeSS database and for ARAS campaign (a large campaign concerning GAIA space mission in support of
RVS spectrograph car be offered to amateurs in the future...., for example).

Christian

Here is a confirmation of the odd H-alpha shape seen in Valerie's trace. It was clear that night here in Baltimore and I captured this spectrum just an hour or two after Valerie's. Note the plot label is incorrect - the camera was an ST8xme, not ST9!


Mike Potter
Baltimore, MD

Mike,

You confirm also the small depth of Halpha line for the date. Excelllent!

Christian

Here are my 3x 30min spectra from earlier tonight, 5 Jan, with a resolution of 0.52A (R=12,600). No sign of the earlier reported Ha distortion.

Cheers, Bernard

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

Given the amount of cloudy weather here on the US east coast I've had some extra time on my hands and, well, devil's playmate and all. Up until last night (January 4/5) I've had ten nights where I've been able to acquire spectra of Mintaka - five of those nights were during the campaign. I've been observing using the LHiRes with 2400 l/mm grating and an ST8 camera, so I get about 180 A of coverage, enough to get H-Alpha and He I 6678 on each image. So I decided to measure the radial velocity from a combined set of three 600-second spectra from each night and to see if I could determine Vsin(i) and the period. For each night's data set I took the average of the radial velocities measured for H-alpha and He 6678. After measuring all of the radial velocities I used a period finding algorithm (ANOVA in the Peranso package). I was pretty surprised and pleased with the result. Here is the output from Peranso:



The upper left plot shows each night's measurement, Vr on the Y axis, and HJD on the X axis. The upper right plot shows the period finding significance plot. Below that is a phase plot folding all the observations onto the period found. The lower left is an information box showing the period and amplitude found. The algorithm is pretty good for period finding (which is what it's designed for) but not so good at finding the point of zero phase and amplitude.

Since Peranso doesn't really say anything about the phase and since the "curve" it fits is far from being a sine wave I put together a quick script in Excel to minimize the differences between the measurements and a sine wave with a period equal to what I found (which actually ended up within about .002 days of the generally accepted value - though the reported error estimate from Peranso was about 0.018 days). Free parameters in the Excel sheet were phase and amplitude. The plot, below, shows the best matched sine wave.



So, while I was able to get pretty darn close to the accepted period the time for zero phase is off by about 0.21 days, and the amplitude of Vsin(i) is small by about 25%.

Mike Potter
Baltimore, MD

EDIT: And I do realize I should have corrected to heliocentric velocities - but I figured Mintaka was transiting near midnight and so over the period of these measurements the correction would be small. But maybe I'll make that correction and see how it affects the results.

Hello Mike,

fine work, really.



If you want to determine more parameters (orbital components) you can use "velocity". That's a professional software running in Linux and it is free. Download it here:
http://la-samhna.de/misc/

The combination of Peranso (to determine the period) and velocity (for all the other orbital elements) works fine.

A other way to get the orbitalelements is the use of a computeralgebra (CAS) work sheet.
e.g. see
http://www.astrospectroscopy.eu/spektre ... /Mizar.htm
(only in german, sorry).

_________________
Herzliche Grüße / best regards

Lothar

https://lotharschanne.wordpress.com/

User of ISIS software can also compute period, radial velocity or
JD0 date of periodic phenomena by using a simple and
efficient tools accessible from Misc/Radial velicity tabs (see screen copy
below).

Here the contain of actual input RV.DAT file:

223.481 31.89
239.425 -64.80
271.397 25.57
277.544 0.347
279.436 -77.34
280.325 -3.52
281.412 64.15
282.312 69.57
282.407 75.80
284.338 -63.18
285.332 -68.49
285.377 -68.89
288.321 62.93
292.482 -15.03
294.380 44.12
295.327 -18.86

First column is JD date minus 2456000, the second column is the
measured radial velocity in km/s (relative to rest 6562.8 A wavelength).

The data are extracted from spectra taken by C. Buil, V. Desnoux and T. Garrel.

The heliocentric velocity is corrected.

Mike, a good idea is to publish your measure for increase points density
(note also the interest of a public data base for nearly real time and exiting common analysis ) ?

I measure only on the base of Halpha line a period of 5.77 days,
a Vsin i value (K parameters) of 72.2 km/s and a reference
JD epoch of 2456224.37 (max RV arbitrary point). The observation duration is
short and spectral profile is affected non-orbital distorsion. All this
seem affect precision.

Below also, graphical output of ISIS :

curve_fit = comparison of observed points - red cross- and experimental computed ephemeris (green line)

curve_phase = the phase curve (red cross -> observed point).

Christian

Hi Christian:

This is great! Of course we will eventually want to also extract the RVs of the moving companion (there is also a stationary ? on timescales of years - third star). This will require some more subtle effort that Noel will carry out, once he has all the reduced spectra in hand.

Best regards, Tony

From: Christian Buil (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 1:19 PM
To: fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)
Subject: [fg-spek] Re: Request for observations of the 2mag star delta Orionis




User of ISIS software can also compute period, radial velocity or
JD0 date of periodic phenomena by using a simple and
efficient tools accessible from Misc/Radial velicity tabs (see screen copy
below).

Here the contain of actual input RV.DAT file:

223.481 31.89
239.425 -64.80
271.397 25.57
277.544 0.347
279.436 -77.34
280.325 -3.52
281.412 64.15
282.312 69.57
282.407 75.80
284.338 -63.18
285.332 -68.49
285.377 -68.89
288.321 62.93
292.482 -15.03
294.380 44.12
295.327 -18.86

First column is JD date minus 2456000, the second column is the
measured radial velocity in km/s (relative to rest 6562.8 A wavelength).

The data are extracted from spectra taken by C. Buil, V. Desnoux and T. Garrel.

The heliocentric velocity is corrected.

Mike, a good idea is to publish your measure for increase points density
(note also the interest of a public data base for nearly real time and exiting common analysis ) ?

I measure only on the base of Halpha line a period of 5.77 days,
a Vsin i value (K parameters) of 72.2 km/s and a reference
JD epoch of 2456224.37 (max RV arbitrary point). The observation duration is
short and spectral profile is affected non-orbital distorsion. All this
seem affect precision.

Below also, graphical output of ISIS :

curve_fit = comparison of observed points - red cross- and experimental computed ephemeris (green line)

curve_phase = the phase curve (red cross -> observed point).

Christian

_________________
Tony Moffat

Here are my 4x 30min spectra from 6 Jan, with a resolution of 0.50A (R=13,000).

Only one night of this campaign left!

Cheers, Bernard

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

Hello,

this is an analysis of my results of this campain. Only on 01/01/2013 I had good conditions , otherwise always fog or clouds. But I'm happy with the result.
The next days more, it's late!

regards
Siegfried

Here are my 3x 30min spectra from 7 Jan, with a resolution of 0.50A (R=13,000), which I believe is the last night of this campaign. Can the 'powers that be' confirm this?

I'm not sure if the continuum profile change between the first (blue) spectrum and the other two is genuine. There was a time gap of over an hour between them, due to a mount tracking problem, so it wasn't a sudden change.

Cheers, Bernard

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

Dear all,

Thank you all for your wonderful contributions to the campaign. MOST should have finished observing recently, and the CHANDRA observations are all finished. We have some beautiful data and now comes the fun analysis. I will be going through my email to see what I have/don't have and comparing to the spectra posted on the forum.

I would like one night of 'raw' data from amateurs to make sure that the reductions from all the different telescopes/spectrographs will be compatible. I understand there have been some issues with sending large files to my astro.umontreal.ca email. If you are looking for another way to send them, Dropbox should work pretty good (www.dropbox.com), I can provide my gmail account to you if requested, or I could potentially get an ftp site set up. Once I have the data in order, I will try to post some initial looks at them. I expect we have amazing time coverage, and this campaign has excited us at U de Montreal for the upcoming WR campaign this summer!

Again, many thanks for your dedication over the holiday season to observing delta Ori, and may the skies stay clear for us all!

Cheers,

Noel

Dear all,campaign is finished. Despite a not very cooperative weather I had more than 32 hour of continuous échelle observation on 13 days plus reference star when possible. Available here http://gabalou.canalblog.com/


Let me says what i think about this campaign and the next to come WR134 135 137.
I shall not send the raw data. You can verify the validity of spectra with a lot of other means, telluric, continuum, reference stars and especially concordance of the various observations available.  The lack of coordination between amateur was the principal problem. No webpage grouping all observations no dedicated format, no protocol and method for spectra production, some producing raw spectra, some tellurics removal, heliocentric corrected, normalized spectra, jpg, poor fit header...All other campaign i participated were more organized.
 How to know in this conditions if calibration, flat or instrumental response are good and comparison between spectra are more difficult. The privacy politic of data has contributed to this disorder. You have already Most and Chandra data to protect your article. I consider amateur spectra are of public domain as we are not in contract or paid for this. It's always a great pleasure to producing data for sharing science and improve our knowledge and skilness.
This was a trial gallop for WR134 135 137 and that it better needs to get organized to have data of the most experimented amateur and to improve the skill of others unless you want to work with only IAC missions data. But it maybe not enough as technical problems or bad weather will join the party.
Let's arise in ConVento a time of maturity of the amateur community as it is in others spectrocopics group or campaigns.


Cheers
thierry Garrel
2013/1/8 Noel Richardson <fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)>

_________________
Thierry Garrel
Observatoire de Fontcaude, Montpellier, France
SpectroBlog http://gabalou.canalblog.com/

While I sadly have to agree with most of Thierry's comments on this campaign's organization and the need to be better prepared for the next I do believe we should try as much as possible to accommodate the PI's data needs. If we, as amateurs, believe our data should be in the public domain why not also the raw data if it is requested?

Cheers, Bernard

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

Hi Thierry and everyone,

I appreciate your concerns, and we will probably have some discussions on the upcoming campaign in the next few weeks.

I agree that the amateur data is taken "not in contract or paid for" as Thierry said. I also will say that the data are great, the time coverage wonderful, and we (the "pros") really appreciate the work, dedication, and attention to detail that is provided by a great group of amateurs here on the forum or elsewhere. I also agree that we have other proprietary data, so that does protect us in some sense.

In regards to the raw data, proprietary period discussion, etc, I think that I both agree and disagree at the same time. Neither myself nor any other pro can keep you from doing with the data what you wish, whether it is posting it on a public website, only emailing it to the PI, sharing it amongst yourselves, or even giving it to another astronomer not involved in the project. We decided to ask for spectra for this campaign late in the process (September or October), and that certainly hurt the communication this time. I asked for the raw data only to ensure that the data taken by at least 14-15 telescope/spectrograph/observer combinations were compatible. That will likely be more difficult with the upcoming WR campaign where we will be looking for changes at the 1% level, and we will discuss how to best deal with the data and begin a new discussion soon.

I hope we can all learn from this and move forward. Many thanks again for your efforts with delta Ori. Hopefully I will have a first look of all data merged for everyone next week or so.

Cheers,

Noel

Hi Thierry,

I must admit that I am quite enthusiastic about the data delivered from the amateur side. This was somewhat unexpected considering the difficulties for an international campaign like this. I need to highlight my impression to set my response to your concerns in the correct context.
I agree with you according to the different needs and expectations of amateurs and professionals. However, I believe these differences remain only if we (pros and ams) would not take the “other side” into account. But this is already in progress. Don’t forget that we all are in a relatively early pioneer stage of ProAm campaigns and that we all still need to learn from them. In this sense your and Bernards opinion is well appreciated.

A dedicated website? Yes. Professionals often underestimate the need for amateurs.
No harmonized reduction method? Yes, that would help. But the data will be harmonized later, as Noel pointed out.
Necessary data comparison? Maybe, but the stuff I saw is already excellent.

I already made my point about confidential and exclusive data. Maybe I am wrong (the pros can correct me) but if amateurs want to play a role in professional environments (that is what you presently do) then they should consider all respective professional necessities. If I would be a pro and ask for support I would not like to see my invested work and offer for collaboration undermined by data spread out somewhere else. If exclusive access can not be granted, well, I would stick on other sources. And I fear, that would not be the amateurs and they would be out for such campaigns.

Amateur data are public domain? Yes, as Noel said. But if you are a team member in a dedicated campaign this can introduce problems.

Thank you again for this valuable input. It might open a discussion and help future campaigns.

Thomas

Hi everybody,

I'd like to let you know that I took a few echelle spectra of Delta Ori at the 2.7-m telescope of the Mcdonald Observatory with a resolving power of 60,000 between December 29 and January 3. The spectra are being reduced and will be ready within a few days. I'm wondering what would be the best place to send them to.

Thank you,

Anatoly


--
Dr. Anatoly Miroshnichenko
Assoc. Professor
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Phone: 336-334-5062
web: http://www.uncg.edu/~a_mirosh
 

Hi Anatoly and all,Well the 2.7m on Del ori, remenber me the CFHT on del sco and how delicate is the use of these telescope on bright stars. Just for curiosity what was the exposure time ?


Thierry

2013/1/10 Anatoly Miroshnichenko <fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)>

_________________
Thierry Garrel
Observatoire de Fontcaude, Montpellier, France
SpectroBlog http://gabalou.canalblog.com/

Hi Thierry,

A typical exposure time in order not to saturate the CCD on such a bright star is about 20 seconds. Note that the CCD is a high quality and capacity. It can take up to 200,000 electrons before saturation. Since the weather was not great, with clouds, I had to increase exposure times to a minute. One night was totally cloudy, resulted in an exposure time of 10 minutes. The first reduced spectrum has a signal-to-noise ratio of over 400 in the continuum near Halpha.

Anatoly

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM, thierry Garrel <fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de (fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de)> wrote:
--
Dr. Anatoly Miroshnichenko
Assoc. Professor
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Phone: 336-334-5062
web: http://www.uncg.edu/~a_mirosh
 

Now that the 'field' campaign has ended I have made a quick (dried and rectified) plot of the spectra I recorded between 10 Dec and 7 Jan.

Cheers, Bernard

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

Wow, we have a LOT of great data from the campaign. Here's the stats (of what I have/know of) right now. If you are missing, or I have bad information, please let me know so I can fix it or we can find the source of the problem.

The table is as fairly self-explanatory. If you have questions, let me know. There are a lot of data to process and analyze now. (more than 400 spectra!)

Hi Noel and all,

Based on the number of spectra the campaign is certainly looking like a great success, but reporting the number of observations can be a bit meaningless. Some may submit every single order spectra while others only the resulting stacked spectra, and eShel spectra are even more misleading as every 'exposure' typically results in over 30 spectra.

Congratulations to all those that took part ... a great effort.

Cheers, Bernard

_________________
Quicquid Nitet Notandum

Hi Bernard (and others),

These numbers represent the number of spectra where one eshel spectrum with all orders is counted once, and one Cassegrain spectrum is counted once. I have started the task of trying to merge them together, but I expect that will take a while. Perhaps I will have a fun plot of the data next week.

I certainly agree that the campaign was a great succes, largely because of the dedication by "amateurs" like yourself. The data are really great.

Cheers,

Noel

Noel:

Since the item is missing in your table, the spectrograph I used was a LHiRes III.

Mike

Hello Noel,

I see a "?" in the second columne and I don't what it means..... I used I CCD with an KAF 3200 . ( NOVACCD....a german product).

Is it enough for you, what you have to know about my spectra?

Have I to send you the original not reduced frames. In this case, I need a ftp acount. But I think you have about 400 spectra, so my spectra are not so important......

cheers
berthold (stober)