Re: The Prize #2

[tom <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

Slowly some really great people are accumulating on my list.   So there is 
getting to be a good chance that I will do it.

A probable goal is to improve the existing data set.  At least Michael and 
Andrew have shown that it might be possible.  

What I would like is that we run the existing .cal files through some computer 
program and out comes data that is only limited by the measurement 
statistics.  This would put the noise floor for bright stars at sub mili 
mags.  I know we will not get this.  But Michael and Andrew have shown that 
we might get a factor of two.  This would put the bright star noise floor at 
0.02 to 0.03.  That would be good enough for me as a goal.

I think the data taking process is what it is and will not improve.  Consider 
this a Hubble before the fix and we want to get the best data we can from it.

I think it wold be nice if those of you that are interested get together on 
this list and discuss what you think the rules should be.  Chris has already 
pointed out that there could be ways to cheat.  i.e make the data look better 
without it actually being better.  We will figure out a way to prevent this.

Tom Droege

On Friday 17 September 2004 10:38 am, Michael Koppelman wrote:
> I thought your first message on this subject seemed like "I think I
> might..." and not a done deal. Are you saying it is a done deal?
>
> The other question is: are we to demonstrate that better results are
> possible or are we to improve the process? Those are two very different
> things. I'm sure it is possible to improve a given data set but to
> actually improve your process is a whole 'nother matter and may not
> even be possible (e.g. slewing to standard stars every couple of
> hours).
>
> Thanks!
> Michael
>
> On Sep 17, 2004, at 3:09 PM, tom wrote:
> > The response to the first prize offer was pretty underwhelming
> > considering the
> > size of the prize offered.  My first assumption is that Americans have
> > lots
> > of money and little time.  Not so true in Canada where people seem to
> > have
> > more time and less money.  The statistics are not very good.  ;^)  I
> > had said
> > (all mail lost) that I wanted at least a half dozen respondents to go
> > through
> > the work of investigating the tax and other consequences.  I got 2 or
> > three.
> > Only two really responded in a positive way.
> >
> > Still, the quality of those that did apply is exceptional.  So I am
> > quite
> > tempted.  I just hope a few more will show interest.
> >
> > For those that missed he first mailing, I have proposed a prize of
> > $20,000 for
> > work leading to the improvement of the tass data.  I think it would be
> > appropriate to have a debate here as to what the rules should be, and
> > then we
> > would set a fairly long period to demonstrate a positive result.  Say
> > the
> > year 2005.  I think pushing the noise floor below 0.02 or 0.01 would
> > be a
> > suitable goal for such a prize.  No result, no prize.  The method
> > would also
> > have to be practical.  I have to be able to process all the data in a
> > year
> > using a half dozen or so GHz computers.
> >
> > Jennifer exploded when she saw the first offer but I think I have
> > convinced
> > her that this is a good way to advance a project that I have already
> > spent
> > much more in pursuing.
> >
> > If any of you are interested in participating, send again a short mail
> > message.  For those of you new to me it should include some indication
> > of
> > your qualifications.