Disk Detective Talk

Object is a star by SED, but DSS2 images show nothing; i.e. not seen in Visible Light

  • mboschmd by mboschmd moderator

    I've found what I thought were otherwise excellent candidates: they are stars by SED (caveats noted) but virtually show nothing at DSS2 wavelenghts.
    Do we exclude these objects because "Not round in DSS2 or 2MASS images" (they're not anything!)

    Posted

  • Pini2013 by Pini2013 translator, moderator in response to miltonbosch's comment.

    Milton, first try to investigate more in the catalogs if you think the rest of the images are good

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd moderator

    Well, that's the hard part. I'm just a regular Joe amateur astronomer who's head is spinning at the tremendous amount of new concepts and tools I need to become facile with, before I'll be able to submit candidates for observation.
    I had no idea I would be in college again, doing self-study at home, when I joined the High User group.
    I watched all the videos posted; some were for the new user. I watched Disc Detective Complete Session (41:38), and no explanation is given while jumping from page to page, and catalog to catalog.
    I know this is Old Hat for all the Astronomy PhD's out there, but it is becoming a burden to me, trying to fully understand what I'm being asked to do, and provide, when submitting a good candidate.
    I'm in this group by virtue of my enthusiasm to complete the first batch of images in their entirety, in about six weeks, so Marc asked me if I'd like to join the group as a High User. I said I'd be honored to join the group.
    I'm probably the least educated person on the DD team, astronomy wise - and am interacting with the databases for the first time.
    I had no idea it would be this hard....honestly.

    Posted

  • jdebes by jdebes scientist, admin

    Milton, there is no expectation for you to do all that, only if it's fun. If it isn't, don't do it! I think if you can see the objects in 2MASS and they look point like, but you don't see them in the visible that is ok. Still mark them as good candidates if they don't have any of the other common problems we're looking for. You can also still be a super user without slogging through tons of catalogs if you don't want to. Honestly, if you do the classifications, check SIMBAD and the SED and make comments, that is awesome, and way more than a casual user. Lots of these objects have very little information, and for those objects both interested DD users and the science team will have to dig more carefully to determine if they're useful for follow up.

    It is completely up to you on how engaged you want to be. We have thousands of people who visit the site, and we know that some people will only want to look at images, still others will want to check out the SEDs, and a small percentage get really excited and dig deeper. As a scientist, I'm excited if you do any of those things. I don't have any bad feelings for someone who does a handful of classifications and then never comes back--I just want everyone to have fun with this.

    Posted

  • Pini2013 by Pini2013 translator, moderator in response to miltonbosch's comment.

    Milton, Sometimes I don't find any info so I mark them as good candidates because is what I think is correct for me. If I'm not sure how to classify them I prefer to mark them as good candidate and be wrong than loose a candidate, but that is my opinion.

    Just like John said is not necessary to do more investigation Only if it's fun! 😃

    Posted

  • Shigeru by Shigeru moderator in response to miltonbosch's comment.

    Thanks for watching that video, the idea of that one was to show how I normally work, I'm still learning and do it n that way because it's fun for me 😉 (as a computer technician I find fun a lot of weird things XD )

    My first part of the DD contributions were using SED and SIMBAD mostly as JDebes say, and I do the same what Pini2013 when there is no more info, the main point as both say and I also agree: go as deeper as you want while you find it fun 😃

    Posted

  • Artman40 by Artman40

    Does no object in visible light mean it's a distant star behind a cloud of dust?

    Posted

  • Shigeru by Shigeru moderator in response to artman40's comment.

    I think what yes, at least one of the possibilities.

    Posted

  • jdebes by jdebes scientist, admin in response to artman40's comment.

    It can mean that the object is far away and deep in the plane of the galaxy, thus obscured by dust. It could be a very cold object. It could also be a young star with an edge-on disk that is obscuring the star at shorter wavelengths.

    Posted

  • wizzydaz by wizzydaz

    I think this should be added to the tutorial, even if only to confirm that if you aren't going to check the databases they should be marked as good candidates. First couple I saw I marked as 'not round' on the basis that I couldn't confirm that they were round if they were invisible. Then as I saw more I started to question that logic and eventually found this discussion.

    I've visited a few zooniverse projects and always seem to find myself spending more time scouring talk for more detailed examples than actually classifying.

    Posted

  • Pini2013 by Pini2013 translator, moderator in response to wizzydaz's comment.

    Hi wizzydaz

    You have a good point about this images. We are updating the information so it can be more accessible and accurate.

    Anyway, there's nothing you can do wrong in DD, remember that a lot of users are classifying the same object and that will correct any mistake you make.

    Posted

  • HarrieM by HarrieM

    Hi. As a retired electronics engineer, I do have some time I can spent on interesting things. I tried to classify some candidates, but still I'm not sure I'm on the right track. When I make mistakes, will someone tell me?
    I would hate it when I give other people lots of work, because I made mistakes.
    Next to the tutorial and the help pages, is there something I could or should see or study, so I can improve my skills in detecting the right "candidates"?
    Investing some hours extra in the beginning, could result in better judgement and so in better results.
    I don't mind spending time here, but I hope it is a contribution for good things, not to slow down others.

    Posted

  • Pini2013 by Pini2013 translator, moderator in response to HarrieM's comment.

    Hi @HarrieM

    You can consult our blog, there's a lot of helpful information there.
    But the only way to learn is doing classifications.

    If we see something really wrong, we'll tell you.
    Generally, we make comments on the objects. I recommend to make a collection with your candidates so we can help you.

    Welcome to DD! 😉
    Fernanda

    Posted