Comment on Astronomy and Astrophysics article at EDP Sciences

Comparing extrapolations of the coronal magnetic field structure at 2.5 R⊙ with multi-viewpoint coronagraphic observations

I think that Dexter is supposed to extract data from images of graphs. But, whatever its possible function, clicking Dexter does not seem to work. It says, wait for the image to download. But never actually does anything. Maybe some extra clues are needed.

I clicked on the image at

And then “Click to view fullscreen”, but it puts the image down at the bottom of the page, mostly hidden and chopped off.

Overall, images of graphs are not really “data”. Data is tables and lists and sets of numbers with units, dimensions, and usually equations and models. Data allows easy calculations. Images mean manual transcription and guess-work. Images in jpeg are lossy. Images from scientific instruments should be in lossless formats so one can reproduced and verify someone’s work.

Please see what is going on with Dexter, with the full screen. And seriously look at your whole concept of “data”. If authors would share the raw datastreams (archived in stable locations), and the software and algorithms (including symbolic forms of the equations used), there would not be such a disconnect between publishing in the equivalent of “ink on paper” and groups working together to solve complex problems.

This solar group, every one has their own separate models and data. To converge to a common model, you need the same data used in the previous analysis. The same programs (because it is almost never possible to use a text description of something, without the settings and parameters and often the actual scripts) so the exact calculations can be reproduced.

I would love to check their work and connect it to what other groups are doing. But, because you (an intermediary between the author and users) did not faithfully transmit the information without loss, I either have to contact them (iffy), or completely reproduce the work (rather expensive to impossible).

I am not criticizing you. Everyone has problems. But just indicating a kind of world where groups share models, real data, and work on ONE model of the sun, not tens of thousands.

I do check the entire Internet for all facets of topics like

(“the sun” OR “solar”) (“model” OR “models” OR “codes”) “magnetic” and it gives 71.4 million entry points. Most of those references where there are studies duplicate other work. That whole community spends most of its effort just trying to find enough information to understand, let alone to verify and closely check what others have done. But it is now possible to treat that whole set of materials, archived datasets, live datastreams, models, programs, equations and methods as a single collection – so everyone is working on ONE problem, not a hundred thousand partial and incomplete copies of what looks like many problems.

Richard Collins, Director, The Internet Foundation

—————- The post failed because the “contact us form” had a hidden limit on size of message. —

I tried to send you a detailed description of a problem with your website and comments. This form failed because you put a limit on size of text. Shame on you.

I posted the note to you at

Comment on Astronomy and Astrophysics article at EDP Sciences

Please read it, and consider adding “attachments” to this form. Your topics in these papers are complex. ALL your tools for communication should not have limits on size or format. If people want to share equations, or complete models, or links to datastreams, or live simulations – let them. That is what a website is for. The Internet is interactive, not one way.

Richard Collins, Director, The Internet Foundation

Richard Collins

About: Richard Collins

Sculpture, 3D scanning and replication, optimizing global communities and organizations, gravitational engineering, calibrating new gravitational sensors, modelling and simulation, random neural networks, everything else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *