[Phys-L] Swift's Self-Described Burster Detections.

[betwys1 at SBCGLOBAL.NET (Brian Whatcott)]

At 12:25 PM 12/17/2004, Leigh Palmer, you wrote:
> I have been away for a while, lurking inattentively. We went down to
> Cape Canaveral for the launch of Swift. For those who know me (or
> David) I pass along these items:
>
> http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/newsbulletin/2004/11/17/text02.shtml
> (Read to the end. The article is actually about David.)

I quote:
" In the imaging equipment aboard Swift, 54,000 pinholes in a panel of lead
the size of a full sheet of plywood produce an "image," actually thousands
of overlapping images (approximately 30,000 of them). The Los Alamos
software must unscramble those overlapping images and make one stronger,
brighter picture from which the precise location of the gamma-ray burst can
be found, while eliminating known sources and statistical variations"

I haven't really read much of the referenced URLs, but I have some points
  to make on the topic.
    It is hard to imagine a more clumsy arrangement to be carried aboard an
  expensive rocket payload than something which is essentially a 4 by 8 ft
sheet of lead with holes in it. (A glancing reflection gold-coated tube
bundle would be more suited I suspect.  But then, I am no expert.)

   It reminds me mostly of the Halloween decoration I made for the house:
I cut the base out of a pumpkin, and drilled one hundred holes in it. Into
these I thrust the fairy lights from two strings from the inside, after
pulping the pumpkin and swilling it with bleach solution. Pretty!

I was particularly exercised by the literary treatment of a test
sequence of running a CCD camera into a closed instrument barn-door.
Yes, my dears, the King really IS naked!

I am an opponent of high stakes science in space: I think it is
unscientifically grand-standing and in fact, financially ruinous.
     Britain and Italy have apparently signed on with others, but I hope
  the ridiculous project will peter out under the weight of the
  ever-growing deficits which fund it.

I don't believe that the raw data has been published for these "bursters":
they are below the x-ray noise threshold, I presume, and  the events
detected rely heavily on fore-knowledge of the events which are sought.
In other words, the models which are used to extract the data thereby
condition its discovery.
Different model: different event.....

I write this with tongue in cheek, and not a little malice as a riposte
for the following:

"Sorry to bust in without reading, but I have a couple of points to make
on this topic. I am an opponent of the Kyoto process. I consider it to
be scientifically ungrounded and, potentially, economically ruinous.
Canada has signed on, but I expect (hope, really) that the ridiculous
process will peter out before it does too much harm. Larry is a friend,
but I don't know his views on this subject. I mean no malice."

How childish of me!



Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!