Computer Animations

I do not have time to make any of the animations asked for in the SAS TCS article "Creating New Astronomical Computer Graphics and Animations" (The Sperling Files: Creating New Astronomical Computer Graphics and Animations, The Citizen Scientist, 13 January 2006), but I do have a suggestion for a program that would be useful for making at least some of the animations and for a lot more animations illustrating scientific principals. That program is POVRay....

Jim Hannon

Readers, Jim's e-mail was so interesting that we asked him to expand it into a project article. The result is in this issue (27 January 2006) of The Citizen Scientist. Be sure to take a look at this and the intriguing animation Jim produced. Editor.

Can Citizen Scientists do Science and will Scientists Listen? A Professional's View

Editor,

Jim Hannon's letter "Can Citizen Scientists do Science and will Scientists Listen?" (The Citizen Scientist, 13 January 2006) approaches two issues.

First, amateur scientists can indeed do first-rate research. I'm a scientist who has gone a different way after many years and who might now be termed an amateur. Certainly, professional scientists venturing outside of their range of training will become an amateur, in effect. Richard Feynman joined a team working on biology, for instance.

In the past, access to large libraries and to mentors were the primary requisites for becoming a professional scientist. Sometimes, you also had to have access to lots of equipment and/or money.

Now, the Internet is providing the library and even data in some cases. The amateur must simply be aware of the background required to advance a field and work (sometimes long and very hard) to gain that background. I believe that if you have the passion, you can do it.

The second issue shows how lots of very expensive education cannot possibly teach everything. It also demonstrates a problem with arrogance of the "elite." Those scientists should have made every effort to make every member of their expedition a full-fledged team member. You should have shared in all of their discussions, even those so technical that they might make little sense. It never hurts anyone to be exposed to new ideas, etc.

Besides, the contributions you were attempting to make were engineering ones that can make the science go faster and better. Details of experimental design are just as important as the science being explored -- sometimes more important.

I can only apologize on behalf of my fellow scientists for poor behavior by my brethren.

Harry Keller

Harry E. Keller, Ph.D.
President
ParaComp, Inc.
310-773-4293
www.smartscience.net

Can Citizen Scientists do Science and will Scientists Listen? An Amateur's View

Editor,

Regarding Jim Hannon's letter "Can Citizen Scientists do Science and will Scientists Listen?" (The Citizen Scientist, 13 January 2006), I have, occasionally, encountered people who, upon learning that I was an amateur, judged me on that fact alone. Most of the professional scientists I have interacted with (meteorologists, physicists, mathematicians, and astronomers at the University of Wisconsin at Madison) have been gracious, willing to talk, and willing to accept me into their midst.

I have found that the way to get people to treat me well is to learn everything I can about a subject on my own and ask simple questions of the professionals only when I have tried to figure things out on my own. If you can develop a strong understanding of the jargon and techniques used in the field, no one will even ask if you are a pro or not. I never claim to be a pro, but if they don't ask I don't tell them until much later. I have received shocked looks when some people find out. They are shocked in a good way and make statements like, "I think it is amazing that you have learned so much on your own," and then they continue to ask me to help them in their work.

I have noticed an arrogance that some, if not many, amateurs hold in that they do not need to follow the rules that the pros follow. Submissions to journals, or even to other scientists, do not follow the norms of scientific behavior. When they are rejected without comment, because the journal or the scientist receives so many submissions or correspondence they don't have time for anything that doesn't look serious, the amateur feels slighted. My statement is that if the amateur doesn't want to play by the rules they shouldn't feel bad about being left out.

As for the anecdotal tale about the neoprene gloves, why should someone believe it? I should risk my research project, my grant, and my professional reputations just because someone tells me that they are an engineer and that makes it so? Argument by authority is no argument at all. I don't accept such arguments from scientists, either. An appropriate answer to the question, "How do you you know?" Is to respond by saying, "Because I have worked with them before. Because the alkanes within the gasoline do not react with the neoprene the same way it reacts to the latex."

As for using STP instead of gasoline and grease, I wonder if the professionals had done work in their labs to establish how many seeds would be captured by their goop out of the seeds that passed through. If they had measured that rate (and it seems that they would have had to), then changing the substance being used would throw their calculations out the window.

I almost always get annoyed by the comments of the form, "The pros don't like amateurs..." The real question is, "Why should the pros listen to you?"

My own experience has been that after an immense amount of hard work I have gained the respect of professional colleagues who accept my work. Until I had put in that work, why on earth should they have listened to anything I had to say? In a world where research grants and reputations can be lost by a single failed project, why should anyone take the time unless they can be sure that an amateur can contribute? Note that I speak of a failed project, not a negative result. A failed project is where the science becomes sloppy.

If an amateur wants to contribute, they can. I am always welcome to give talks at the Chaos and Complexity Seminar group, I am invited to work on theoretical projects, and I am invited to help develop models. Why? Because I have proven myself. That is something that every amateur who is really serious can also do, but only if they put in the required work to make their results suitable for the pros.

George E. Hrabovsky
President, MAST

Jim Hannon's letter and the replies by Dr. Harry Keller and George Hrabovsky all make good points. I have personally observed situations similar to what Jim described. But most of my interactions with professional scientists have been along the lines of what George relates. George also introduced a new issue, publishing in scientific journals. While it would be good if more amateur scientists would submit their findings to professional journals, the vast majority of amateurs do not have the time or resources to do so. When they do, of course, George's point about meeting the standards of the professionals trumps everything. Amateurs need not worry about their lack of academic qualifications if their paper meets the same standards expected of professionals. I have no academic qualifications in science, and none of the journal editors who have published my papers have ever bothered to ask. Editor.

Alvaro Amaro de Azevedo meets Shawn Carlson's Challenge

Editor:

Way back in 2001 Shawn Carlson issued a challenge in the SAS Bulletin:"A Challenge of Miniscule Proportions." The challenge was for an amateur scientist to make a small lens from basic materials.

It looks to me like Alvaro Amaro de Azevedo has met this challenge with his 0.75 mm diameter biconvex lens ("The Challenge of Grinding a Miniature Biconvex Lens," The Citizen Scientist, 13 January 2006).  

Jim Hannon

Paper or Plastic?

Editor:

Regarding "Paper or Plastic" (Forrest Mims, The Citizen Scientist, 13 January 2006), plastic is made from petroleum for cost reasons -- similar to automobile fuel. Other feedstocks could be used. Of course, in that case, a new analysis would be necessary to handle the costs of converting biological materials into feedstock.

Thus, the feedstock part of the equation may possibly be eliminated, making plastics even more favorable.

Harry Keller

Harry E. Keller, Ph.D.
President
ParaComp, Inc.
www.smartscience.net

Coriolis Force Revisited

Editor:

In reading the article by Kevin T. Kilty on the Coriolis force, I found myself to be rather naive (see "One More Round with the Coriolis Force," Part 1. Odd and Humorous Beliefs and Part 2. Challenging the Alleged Effects, The Citizen Scientist, 20 May and 3 June 2005).

Having spent most of my life north of the equator and some years in Argentina, I found it necessary to develop a mental model of the Coriolis force. Incidentally, Kevin, I did carry my rattleback to South America but could not remember which way it spun in the Northern hemisphere. I did not consider this a true test of the Coriolis force anyway, since the direction of spin is dependant upon the asymmetry of the rattleback, and I could not remember which way it spun in the Northern hemisphere. After doing intensive research from supermarket tabloids, I came to a profound conclusion. I have tried to achieve consistent results of the direction of spin of water draining eliminating as many variables as possible. To my disappointment, it appeared to be random.

My conclusion is that if I drive a screw through a board, I am turning it clockwise. My helper, who is watching the other side of the board, observes the screw as coming through the board with a counterclockwise rotation. If that is the case, then the Coriolis force is not a force at all, but is an artifact resultant from a point of observation. If I drive a screw from the North Pole to the South pole the same observation would occur.

I have no fantasy that I have debunked the concept of the Coriolis force as an observational phenomena. If someone wants to design an experiment to evaluate Coriolis force, I am at their disposal in Argentina.

Doug Graham

The Coriolis force is very obvious when cloud patterns north and south of the Equator are observed by satellite. For example, go here for a nice description. Editor.

Letters to "Backscatter" are welcome. Letters are subject to light editing to correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. By placing "Backscatter" in the subject line, you give us permission to consider publishing your letter. Send your letter to Backscatter.