Photometry Poll - 2

[higginsdj]

OK, so given the 'poor' response to my question on Photometry software, I'm wondering how many observers actually do any form of Photometry.....

Note that Regular means every clear night (or very nearly every clear night)

Cheers

[CraigS]

David;
Should this be in the Science Forum ? or perhaps in the Astrophotography/Spectroscopy Forum ?
I'm happy either way .. might get a better response in another Forum (?)

Cheers

[higginsdj]

Or in Observational Astronomy??? I'll let the moderators more it if they see fit.

[Rob_K]

Originally Posted by CraigS

David;
Should this be in the Science Forum ? or perhaps in the Astrophotography/Spectroscopy Forum ?
I'm happy either way .. might get a better response in another Forum (?)

Cheers

LOL, I realise you and Carl are having a ball in Astronomy Science Craig, but I think this sort of thread is exactly what Mike had in mind when he created the sub-forum. That is, a place where people involved in amateur contributions to astronomy science could gather and discuss what they're doing. And photometry is smack bang in the middle of that.

Unfortunately the long-winded and sometimes esoteric cosmology/EU threads have utterly dominated the sub-forum - and that's fine, it's a free forum, but personally I'd like to see much more about the interesting things that IIS members are up to. I do wonder whether members have been a bit hesitant in posting here because of the argy-bargy... Maybe we need a poll on that!

Cheers -

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Rob_K

LOL, I realise you and Carl are having a ball in Astronomy Science Craig, but I think this sort of thread is exactly what Mike had in mind when he created the sub-forum. That is, a place where people involved in amateur contributions to astronomy science could gather and discuss what they're doing. And photometry is smack bang in the middle of that.

Unfortunately the long-winded and sometimes esoteric cosmology/EU threads have utterly dominated the sub-forum - and that's fine, it's a free forum, but personally I'd like to see much more about the interesting things that IIS members are up to. I do wonder whether members have been a bit hesitant in posting here because of the argy-bargy... Maybe we need a poll on that!

Cheers -

All fine by me Rob.
I'd just like to see David get the info he's looking for.

Cheers

[Rob_K]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

OK, so given the 'poor' response to my question on Photometry software, I'm wondering how many observers actually do any form of Photometry.....

Note that Regular means every clear night (or very nearly every clear night)

Cheers

Great poll David. Just wondering if you could clarify the categories. I've always thought of photometry as reduction of CCD images using suitable software. So I'm not exactly sure what you mean by visual.

I do lots of 'fainter thans' on a selection of known & candidate RNes using widefield DSLR images, visually checking the frames. Occasionally I'll estimate magnitudes (visually) from green channels, but only on CVs that for various reasons may have very few observations (eg southern novae in their early stages). My 'obs' are useless otherwise. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Or are you just including all ways observers use to estimate magnitudes including visual through-the-eyepiece estimates?

Thanks!

Cheers -

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Rob_K

LOL, I realise you and Carl are having a ball in Astronomy Science Craig, but I think this sort of thread is exactly what Mike had in mind when he created the sub-forum. That is, a place where people involved in amateur contributions to astronomy science could gather and discuss what they're doing. And photometry is smack bang in the middle of that.

Unfortunately the long-winded and sometimes esoteric cosmology/EU threads have utterly dominated the sub-forum - and that's fine, it's a free forum, but personally I'd like to see much more about the interesting things that IIS members are up to. I do wonder whether members have been a bit hesitant in posting here because of the argy-bargy... Maybe we need a poll on that!

Cheers -

It's not so much that the threads start on EU/PC but Alex hijacks the threads where he thinks he can speak his drivel. He then expects we'll just leave them alone and let his nonsense get promulgated without question. The reason why people tend to stay away from these threads is that they don't want to get involved and most don't have the necessary science background to be able to counter argue Alex, anyway.

If the members post their own stuff, Alex will most likely stay away from their threads, unless it's something he can stir up controversy in. It's a pity that someone has to be around to wreck what might otherwise be good threads and excellent topics just because they have a bee in their bonnet about a subject that 1.) they really know little about, 2.) they follow some pseudoscientific whack-jobs that wouldn't know if their rear ends were on fire, even if you pointed it out to them, and, 3.) Seems to think they have all the answers and that everyone else is a fool and doesn't know what they're talking about.

[renormalised (Carl)]

And, this is a good poll....to see who does what

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Rob_K

...but personally I'd like to see much more about the interesting things that IIS members are up to...

Cheers -

Well, why don't they post something about their stuff. No one is stopping them. Can only mean one of two things....either they're not doing anything, or what they're doing isn't all that interesting or they think no one will be interested. They're loss, either way.

I'd like to see more people posting here in this forum, myself. Even if it's just to find out about stuff that others are involved in or know about. It's the only way you'll learn.

[Rob_K]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Well, why don't they post something about their stuff. No one is stopping them. Can only mean one of two things....either they're not doing anything, or what they're doing isn't all that interesting or they think no one will be interested.

Oh dear Carl. I thought it would have been quite evident what is stopping them.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=66623

As long as the science forum remains a platform for this sort of rubbish and the incredible amount of white noise it generates, then I'm sure that IISers earnestly engaged in contributions to real science will steer clear of it like the plague. I'm not having a go at you - it's a moderation issue. Most forums don't give these people a voice because it's a bad, bad look if you do. Just my two bobs worth.

Sorry David, for interrupting your thread.

Cheers -

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by Rob_K

Great poll David. Just wondering if you could clarify the categories. I've always thought of photometry as reduction of CCD images using suitable software. So I'm not exactly sure what you mean by visual.

I do lots of 'fainter thans' on a selection of known & candidate RNes using widefield DSLR images, visually checking the frames. Occasionally I'll estimate magnitudes (visually) from green channels, but only on CVs that for various reasons may have very few observations (eg southern novae in their early stages). My 'obs' are useless otherwise. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Or are you just including all ways observers use to estimate magnitudes including visual through-the-eyepiece estimates?

Thanks!

Cheers -

Photometry is simply the measurement of the brightness of an object - not about the instrument used. There is the eyeball, the photomultiplier tube (still in wide use I believe), the CCD (including CMOS chipped digital cameras - not just DSLR's), filtered and unfiltered, and the spectrometer of course. (Not sure if anyone is still using film so if they are then they can put that under 'other')

Cheers

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by Rob_K

Oh dear Carl. I thought it would have been quite evident what is stopping them.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=66623

As long as the science forum remains a platform for this sort of rubbish and the incredible amount of white noise it generates, then I'm sure that IISers earnestly engaged in contributions to real science will steer clear of it like the plague. I'm not having a go at you - it's a moderation issue. Most forums don't give these people a voice because it's a bad, bad look if you do. Just my two bobs worth.

Sorry David, for interrupting your thread.

Cheers -

Thats type of post shouldn't keep people away from posting what they are observing. Theres a big difference in what people observe and what they 'believe'.

I have no problems with hearing or reading about people who may pursue observations in areas considered 'off the wall' as long as they abide by proper observational and scientific practices as opposed to 'amateur theorising/speculation'.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Photometry is simply the measurement of the brightness of an object - not about the instrument used. There is the eyeball, the photomultiplier tube (still in wide use I believe), the CCD (including CMOS chipped digital cameras - not just DSLR's), filtered and unfiltered, and the spectrometer of course. (Not sure if anyone is still using film so if they are then they can put that under 'other')

Cheers

I believe there are a few diehards still using film. Can you still buy TechPan film anymore??