Return to Home Page
Re: V is V, and filters or not >>> Another source of problems I've noticed is that folks are believing >>> without question whatever numbers come out from a piece of commercial >>> software. (It's the "it comes from a computer, it must be right" >>> syndrome.) >>> Uncertainties seem to be underestimated by factors of several as >>> well. You can >>> test the software of course by measuring known constant standard >>> stars and >>> seeing how close you get to "truth", and work on figuring out why >>> errors occur---is it the software or your observing? By doing such >>> tests on many >>> nights (every night you observe), you'll get a feeling for what your >>> errors >>> really are, and learn a lot in the process. >> >> Yup. The one that really bugs me as a scientist is reporting >> magnitudes and >> times to vast numbers of "significant" digits. That is what comes out of >> the software, so it must be correct! > Don't damn the digits. Sometimes the digits are there for a purpose. For > example, you need more digits to study the error. It is a pain to put > them in and out of the software. One might make a mistake. An example of > this is the extra ditits in the position reported in the tass pipeline. > I asked Michael to put thse in place so that I could study the twin > problem. If errors are reported, then use them and ignore the digits. And please avoid "zero suppresions", e.g. reporting 13 where it should be 13.00. These values are numerically identical, but need to be treated differently in recording scientific data. Some software packages or scripts automatically ignore this difference, and the bad practise is taken over for generations... One thing I forgot to mention regarding the following part > There is no doubt that a system producing less errors is a better > system. Resorting to tradition is not always a better solution. > This is clearly the direction what the AAVSO charts revisions > are aiming at. The same initiative can be taken with the reporting > system of photometric systems. This must be a much less effort than > in revising a huge number of charts. > > My suggestion would be: > > replace > > > CCDB Charge-coupled device (blue filter) > > CCDI Charge-coupled device (infrared filter) > > CCDO Charge-coupled device (orange filter) > > CCDR Charge-coupled device (red filter) > > CCDV Charge-coupled device (visual filter) is that these AAVSO expressions appeared only in 1995 (according to my own archives, the actual appearance may have been slightly earlier). Yes, borrowing Brian's words, these expressions are "an irresponsible youth" much more than the VSNET would be ;-). The inertia of these expressions is still minimal, and it is the best time now for a change when a better, coherent, solution is discussed. Regards, Taichi Kato
Return to the Powerful Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
