No Subject

Path: merope.saaf.se!electra.saaf.se!not-for-mail
From: hanben@electra.saaf.se (Hans Bengtsson)
Newsgroups: saaf.variable.observationer
Subject: Format of v.s. observations
Date: 22 May 1994 02:04:34 +0200
Organization: SAAF, Svensk Amat|rAstronomisk F|rening
Lines: 68
Sender: saaf@electra.saaf.se
Message-ID: <May92@hoge.baba.hajime.jp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: electra.saaf.se

Dear Dr. Kato,

Thank you very much for your suggestions concerning a standard
format for V.S. observations.

This is, in brief terms, how things are handled in Sweden:

1) Preliminary results: We require no special format. Observations
are distributed by the individual observer in any way he or she
likes. This has one obvious advantage: v.s. observations will be
more than a number of figures, but could include comments on cold
weather, aurorae, wild animals around the telescope, or whatever 
it may be (one night a badger almost ran into my telescope). I find 
such human comments very refreshing and valuable.

2) Final (official) results: Observations are reported on a monthly
basis, on paper. With a BASIC program, the results eventually come out 
as textfiles. The format is what we may call "extended AAVSO format",
i.e. the first part of the line is identical to the AAVSO format,
but then follows the date as Year Month Date (with two dec.), and
also the name of the star. This means, that the observation is
easy to read by computer AND by the human eye. To obtain strict
AAVSO format, the last part of the line is simply cut off. We find
this extremely convenient. With DOS commands like FIND and SORT,
individual stars can be selected and sorted very quickly from a
big and complete file. Diagrams can be obtained from GLE (a plotting
program).


One important point is to clearly distinguish between preliminary
and final results. Thus: if there will be a standard format for
observations distributed via e-mail, it should contain a flag with
the meaning: "this is a preliminary result!". For novae, for instance,
the final estimate may very well be different, since preliminary
comparison star magnitudes may be altered.

No computer program should be required to write a preliminary report.
It is, generally, done late in the night, perhaps after several
hours in cold and windy weather, and with only a couple of hours before
you must get up to work. For practical reasons, a standard format
should be very simple to write and simple to read. Further, it is
not always the case that the observer who reports has got a computer;
it may be a terminal.

One idea would be to use the Basic word REM (or something similar) to
tell "now comes a remark". PRE could mean "preliminary observation of",
followed by a blank, then the star name, then a blank, then date with
three decimals, then observer's code, then a blank, then the magnitude
value and type of magnitude (v, p, etc), followed (if desired) by a 
blank and a REM comment. Like this:

Rem Moon light and aurorae. Some clouds. Reflector 0.15-m.
Pre DO Dra 940515.943 Ben <13.0v Rem Sequence: Kato

Or, even easier for the observer, the decimals of a day could be
written as hours and minutes UT, because that is generally what you
have got in your notebook when returning from the telescope.

To sum it up:
* Reports should be very simple and natural to write, using an editor
  or terminal.
* Observations should have a flag to tell they are preliminary, and that 
  they do not necessarily agree with what is published later by the 
  v.s. society.
* It should be possible to give remarks in an easy way.

Best regards,
Hans Bengtsson