This will be an interesting first for me, an honest to goodness first. We've got beamtime coming up next week, but I'm strictly going as a supporting person. Both of our other post-docs have projects that will run during that time, but none of mine will.

The reasons for mine not running at this point are actually quite good and I'm in no way upset about it. The most important reason being that the physical geometry of this particular station is poorly suited to my experiments. The second reason is that my good synchrotron experiment already has a large supply of data and my secondary faceting project is more suited to our in-house lab equipment. Also it really doesn't make any sense to try and cram too many different things into 6 days of beamtime. It will be difficult enough to do two successful experiments during that time.

Alot of the pre-run jitters are absent. There are problems to be solved, things to be made, things to be fixed... but I get to have tasks delegated to me to work on instead of being the one delegating (and having to solve many of them too). It's actually pretty refreshing in this respect. I've even got time and energy to do some background reading beforehand.

So I am in the interesting position of getting to do and participate in a great deal of science, but not to have quite as much pressure associated with it. One of the biggest flaws in beamline science is that it is very unforgiving to both errors and unexpected results. When you've only got 96 hours in which to do everything (including set up!), you really have to be on your toes to solve problems as they occur. You've also got to maintain the presence of mind to steer the experiment in the correct (read that as "most interesting") direction. Nature frequently gives us things that we do not expect and beamline science does not afford us much luxury in the way of time to figure it out.

But that is the nature of the game right now. There are so few light sources bright enough and with the proper support to do these experiments. Thus, the competition merely for time at the facility is of course very high. Beamtime is the life-blood of today's x-ray scattering scientist. Thus, it's easy to see how there can be a great deal of pressure on the individual scientists to perform well.

However, a great deal of that is not really on my mind as much right now. There's still plenty of pressure and work ahead, but the simple fact that it's not one of my own babies that is running makes my life a good bit easier.

So.... we'll be running two experiments: Dan's titanium-oxide surfaces and Kee-Chul's platinum nanoparticles. Both are exciting experiments and will involve really high quality work(though each is extremely distinct and different). My next beamline experiment will come up before too long and we've got several more in the works. But for now my primary and secondary projects are both "in house" in our own laboratory.

We will be running at a different beamline than is normal for me as the station we normally work at is being upgraded. Most of the time in the past we've used "undulators" or "wigglers" that produce quite controlled x-ray radiation by steering (or rocking) the electron beam back and forth rhythmically. This time however we'll use what is known as a "bend magnet." This changes the direction of the entire beam in an arc, but only once. The radiation emitted is not quite as controlled as before. The beam emits radiation over a much broader spectrum (many more frequencies) instead of being peaked around a particular ones. We will still filter out the frequency we need, but in general we tend to lose some of the total number of photons compared to the undulators or wigglers.

Anyhow there's lots to do and I need to get back to it.

thanks for reading!

For Memorial Day we took a short trip to visit FermiLab in the nearby western suburbs of Chicago. Like Argonne, Fermilab is a Department of Energy laboratory and employs a large number of dedicated scientists. However, they do very different science from what goes on at Argonne. Fermilab primarily focuses on high energy particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. It is (at least for a tiny bit longer) the best particle accelerator in the world. Many of the most important experimental (and some theoretical!) discoveries in particle physics have been made at Fermilab. This is very different science from what I'm used to. The subject is far smaller, the energies much higher, and the number of people involved is much larger!

The building in the picture is Wilson hall where I believe most of the offices are. The main collider ring runs around just to the left of the picture. From our own vantage point on the ground it's just a long row of dirt (the ring is buried underground) that has a slight curvature to it. The experimental halls are at different locations around the lab.

During my time as a graduate student in Seattle, I knew several professors and students that worked on projects at Fermilab. Seeing certain experimental halls that until this time were just acronyms put a nice face to the names. By seeing them, things like MINOS, CDF, D0, all became more real and not just something that I've heard or read about. It's really exciting stuff.



A decent portion of the lab is open to the public and I highly recommend going if you every get the chance. Even without a guide it can be a great experience. One word of advice would be to visit their website and print up some maps and descriptions before you get there!

Aside from the exciting science that goes on and the humbling experience of being in the place where it happens, there's a large amount of wild-life to see. I think the most famous animal residents have to be the bison. The lab keeps a small herd of them quite comfortable. Argonne has its white-deer, and Fermi has its bison. It's spring right now and the herd has at last 4 babies that we saw.

There are also a large number of birds. Kerri enjoys them to no end, including this little guy(her first blue bird of the year). We found a single tree that hosted 3 Cormorants, 1 Heron, and 1 Egret at the same time. Those are all quite large birds, and all seemingly content enough with each other not to care. Kerri had a bird sighting first on this trip finding a Bobolink. Peregrine Falcon's have also been spotted nesting, or at least attempting to nest, on the main building.

During our previous trip we saw a muskrat bringing nesting material and/or food into his little burrow. He would travel back and forth between the burrow and his favorite pieces of tall grass. Each time he'd chew off several large stalks and pull them back through the water. Once the busy little guy caught wind of us he headed under the water and stayed hidden. We checked for him this time, but he was apparently safe and snug in the burrow.

I’m still not over my sinus infection and am feeling pretty low. The Seattle trip will probably be postponed. So I’ve been trying to use what time I can think and focus to read. One important thing on my list of priorities is to act as a referee for a journal. This is the first time I’ve been asked to do such a task.

To explain : Peer review is one of the many (one hopes) quality controls we use in science. In short, during at least one step in the process the paper will be reviewed anonymously by other scientists, usually within the same field of study as the paper. The referees are given the option to make various recommendations, raise questions for the authors, and in general provide an expert opinion about the work in the paper. The editors of the journal provide the comments to the authors and give them a chance to respond. Depending upon the severity of any objections, this process can go on for a long time. My own personal record is having a manuscript hung up in this process for about a year. Ultimately the editors have the final decision.

It is by far and away not a perfect system. The objectivity of the reviewer is not certain, the process can delay the publication of results (especially difficult during direct competition to publish) and it can place additional burdens and barriers to the dissemination of good science. In the worst cases, those can become rather extreme. Many scientists in fact consider peer review a rather broken tool. But despite its flaws, we try to make the best of it. There are alternatives proposed which largely rely on open review by a community of scientists or, in some cases, leaving it largely to each scientist to make up his or her own mind.

It’s a rather huge responsibility and one that I take as a rather serious, sombre task. So much so, that I do not wish to reveal the subject or even journal for the paper that is in question before me. My first task as a newly minted referee was to consult with more senior scientists about how to be a referee. Most of them said what I was fairly certain of already. Be honest, take notes, read it at least twice, be timely, look up similar papers, etc... The journal also provides some rather explicit guidelines which I feel as though I’ve memorized.

My first couple of readings of the paper were generally positive, though a little flat. It’s a good subject, something interesting has been demonstrated, though not hugely different from what has been shown in the past. But during the extended process of review I’ve begun coming up with rather harsh questions. One of the most troubling question is whether or not the material is sufficiently different from other work to warrant publication in this journal. That’s especially relevant as the author has published very similar results in other journals previously.
My first reading of the paper was somewhat in a vacuum, but once I’d pulled up the relevant publications that have come before I have some context. So perhaps the best thing I can ask at the moment is for the author to demonstrate in the manuscript what is truly new in this paper, to bring it out, to say something new. That little request (even innocuously phrased) may in fact be asking a great deal.

So I’m faced with the prospect of presenting some rather critical responses to the editors and it’s left me with an uneasy feeling. I’d by far and away prefer one of two papers. It would be easy if it was so brilliant and dazzling (or heck, even just really good with no errors) that my only comment is, “damn that’s good work. I wish I’d of done it!” It would also be easy if the paper was utter trash or nonsense. However, this paper neither. It isn’t trash and won’t win a Nobel prize.

At the same time, I know exactly what it’s like on the other side. It’s a terrible feeling when someone tears up your carefully built hard work. I know exactly how m I’m still not over my sinus infection and am feeling pretty low. The Seattle trip will probably be postponed. So I’ve been trying to use what time I can think and focus to read. One important thing on my list of priorities is to act as a referee for a journal. This is the first time I’ve been asked to do such a task.

To explain : Peer review is one of the many (one hopes) quality controls we use in science. In short, during at least one step in the process the paper will be reviewed anonymously by other scientists, usually within the same field of study as the paper. The referees are given the option to make various recommendations, raise questions for the authors, and in general provide an expert opinion about the work in the paper. The editors of the journal provide the comments to the authors and give them a chance to respond. Depending upon the severity of any objections, this process can go on for a long time. My own personal record is having a manuscript hung up in this process for about a year. Ultimately the editors have the final decision.

It is by far and away not a perfect system. The objectivity of the reviewer is not certain, the process can delay the publication of results (especially difficult during direct competition to publish) and it can place additional burdens and barriers to the dissemination of good science. In the worst cases, those can become rather extreme. Many scientists in fact consider peer review a rather broken tool. But despite its flaws, we try to make the best of it. There are alternatives proposed which largely rely on open review by a community of scientists or, in some cases, leaving it largely to each scientist to make up his or her own mind.

It’s a rather huge responsibility and one that I take as a rather serious, sombre task. So much so, that I do not wish to reveal the subject or even journal for the paper that is in question before me. My first task as a newly minted referee was to consult with more senior scientists about how to be a referee. Most of them said what I was fairly certain of already. Be honest, take notes, read it at least twice, be timely, look up similar papers, etc... The journal also provides some rather explicit guidelines which I feel as though I’ve memorized.

My first couple of readings of the paper were generally positive, though a little flat. It’s a good subject, something interesting has been demonstrated, though not hugely different from what has been shown in the past. But during the extended process of review I’ve begun coming up with rather harsh questions. One of the most troubling question is whether or not the material is sufficiently different from other work to warrant publication in this journal. That’s especially relevant as the author has published very similar results in other journals previously.
My first reading of the paper was somewhat in a vacuum, but once I’d pulled up the relevant publications that have come before I have some context. So perhaps the best thing I can ask at the moment is for the author to demonstrate in the manuscript what is truly new in this paper, to bring it out, to say something new. That little request (even innocuously phrased) may in fact be asking a great deal.

So I’m faced with the prospect of presenting some rather critical responses to the editors and it’s left me with an uneasy feeling. I’d by far and away prefer one of two papers. It would be easy if it was so brilliant and dazzling (or heck, even just really good with no errors) that my only comment is, “damn that’s good work. I wish I’d of done it!” It would also be easy if the paper was utter trash or nonsense. However, this paper neither. It isn’t trash and won’t win a Nobel prize.

At the same time, I know exactly what it’s like on the other side. It’s a terrible feeling when someone tears up your carefully built hard work. I know exactly how much work can be involved in going from an idea to seeing that idea through to fruition in a journal. So I’ve found myself trying to word my comments in as constructive a way as possible while still presenting them soundly. After all, the authors can disagree with me. If they think I’ve really missed it, they can just go to the editor directly. They’ve also got the option of requesting other referees.

While writing this I’ve been trying to think of the feeling I’ve been having and I just put my finger on it. This is very similar, though perhaps greater, than when I was first a grading homework for students. It was difficult to mark the answers objectively and fairly the first time I found one of my favorite students making mistakes. I knew he had worked hard and tried, but he just didn’t understand. This is a similar feeling though stronger for I know how much more work can go into a journal publication rather than just a homework, lab assignment, or exam. This can be further exacerbated when one realizes that publications are often equated with “success” and funding. uch work can be involved in going from an idea to seeing that idea through to fruition in a journal. So I’ve found myself trying to word my comments in as constructive a way as possible while still presenting them soundly. After all, the authors can disagree with me. If they think I’ve really missed it, they can just go to the editor directly. They’ve also got the option of requesting other referees.

While writing this I’ve been trying to think of the feeling I’ve been having and I just put my finger on it. This is very similar, though perhaps greater, than when I was first a grading homework for students. It was difficult to mark the answers objectively and fairly the first time I found one of my favorite students making mistakes. I knew he had worked hard and tried, but he just didn’t understand. This is a similar feeling though stronger for I know how much more work can go into a journal publication rather than just a homework, lab assignment, or exam. This can be further exacerbated when one realizes that publications are often equated with “success” and funding.

I suppose this won’t be very different from my previous web-journals that I keep during experiments.  I’ll try to post periodically about interesting news from the lab.  If you’re reading this for the first time, this is mainly for family and friends that have asked me what it’s like to be an experimental scientist and physicist.  What you can find here: a bit of insight into the day-to-day activities of a scientist, things that interest me, and a bit from my life.  Hopefully you’ll find some of it interesting.  At some point I’ll try to expand on the choice of name for the blog.  Frankly it has nothing to do with the photo I’ve got at the top of the main page.
 
I’ve decided to merge everything into a single blog and to update it more often than previously.  Why?  I’m not sure.  Perhaps it’s just that I’m sick today (still) and this seems like a fun way to occupy some of my time. Perhaps it’s just a nice thought to have everything in one place.  It also gives me the chance to do some updating for the website and make a few stylistic changes.
 
So I’m supposed to go to Seattle this week, but I’m not sure if that’s going to happen with my head so full viruses and snot.  The german word for this is “Schleimkopf” : literally slime-head.  And I think I’ve got enough for 10 of them.
 

I decided to stick with the iWeb software because, well, I’m lazy about it.  Right now it works reasonably well for what I want to do and is very easy to use.  I wish it had the ability to categorize posts and sort things.  I also wish it was easy to edit the “themes” in an easy fashion.  But nonetheless it does most everything I desire with minimum fuss.