FEEDBACK ON THE 4th (Caltech Oct. 2003) AMS USERS' MEETING

This page is part of the Aerosol MS web pages, and was created by Jose-Luis Jimenez

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FEEDBACK [as interpreted by Jose]
  • 19 people replied to the feedback questionnaire
  • Everyone thought the meeting was very useful
  • Everyone was pleased with the interactions with other groups, despite the growing size of the AMS community. The main complaint was that there was not enough time in the schedule for more interactions with other users.
  • People especially appreciated learning about the data analysis software and about the collection efficiency & beam width probe.
  • Most people thought that none of the topics were covered in too much detail
  • People appreciated that we adhered tightly to a schedule (with breaks) and that we did not have to go far from the AAAR location
  • The main complaint about organization was that the tutorial from Doug on the analysis software should have been done of the 1st and not the 2nd day (Note: that's exactly what we are planning for the 2004 meeting)
  • In terms of the location of the next AAAR meeting (Atlanta after AAAR vs. Europe after the EAC) there is a clear preference for AAAR (12 yes, 6 likely, and 1 unlikely) vs Europe (7 yes, 2 likely, 4 unlikely, 6 No). There was a clear preference for the location closer to each group in almost all responses.
  • In terms of the duration of the meeting, everyone supports at least three days, with some people suggesting 3.5 to 4 days, perhaps with the final time reserved for the more hardcore users or special topics such as aircraft operation.
  • Most people liked the tentative plan for next year. Two people did not like the idea of a poster session.


DETAILED COMMENTS FROM THE USERS
  1. What is your overall rating (0: not useful at all to 5: extremely useful) of the 4th AMS users' meeting?

    • 5 (14 people)
    • 4.5 (2 people)
    • 4 (1 person)
    • 4: I felt that the schedule was a bit tight since we had AAAR just before the AMS meeting

  2. How would you describe your interactions with other AMS users during the meeting?

    • Excellent (2 people)
    • Good (2 people)
    • Friendly and helpful
    • We may need more free discussion time. For example, I would like to have more time to discuss our results with ARI, UMIST and Caltech group and to discuss the wire installation for our machine with John and Doug.
    • Hectic as always, but very productive
    • Everyone was very friendly, open, supportive.
    • Useful and enjoyable
    • Positive and educational. Good exchange of information
    • We met and discussed our work with several other users during the meeting. However, interaction with other users could have been improved if we had more time to introduce ourselves and discuss our work. Maybe its best to do this before starting the meeting.
    • mostly fruitful, however there could be more interaction if there would be some more time for this
    • Good interaction, with useful and interesting discussions. Still a very friendly atmosphere too despite a growing group
    • Good, but not enough time for discussions
    • great - not enough?
    • It is very useful for me to learn how to analyze and interpret the ambient data from various groups. It might be very interesting to summarize the similarity and difference among various experiments (e.g., make a table of the average loadings, dominant composition (mass), etc.)
    • relaxed, no competition

  3. What is the most important thing that you learned during the AMS users' meeting?

    • To me the most important thing was the discussions on "Quantification issues". It was also good to learn the tricks for using Jame's analysis for looking at MS and checks for m/z calibration.
    • a) Collection Efficiency of 0.5 turned out to be an adequate number based on the comparison between AMS data and PILS (MOUDI) data. b) The problem about shape factor (effective density). c)The importance of the wire experiment.
    • Toughie. There's too much to choose from. Probably the shared experiences of aircraft deployments
    • That the user's group is a tremendous resource for further development of the instrument and for technical assistance
    • How best to integrate next years activities with other users. Also the CE/RIE discussion
    • That this is a very dynamic and supportive group
    • The importance in maintaining a record of the instruments history and the mass calibration information. Also, Doug believes in the shoulder but not the dip (just kidding!)
    • That not every AMS user is as intense as you or Doug. Just kidding. How we still have a lot to do to make the AMS as good an instrument as it can be
    • Overview over hardware/software upgrades, tutorial of James' program
    • That such meetings are still very worth-while attending (it would be a major loss not to attend)
    • how to use the analysis software properly. I liked the idea of using the AMS and PSLs to calibrate the the AN output of the DMA
    • The analysis program (2 people)
    • use of the moveable wire, discussion of how to optimize collection efficiency (it's good to get into the nitty gritty of it)
    • Interpretation of the collection efficiency and shape factor
    • Issues related to the collection efficiency
    • Many of the things I donīt know about the AMS are problems the whole community has and there is discussion and suggestions for solutions
    • The work that Ann Middlebrook and Brendan Matthews had been doing

  4. What TOPICS do you wish we had covered, but we did not? Or what aspects did we cover in TOO LITTLE detail?

    • Nothing (3 people)
    • It would have been good to extend the tutorial to TOF (5 people)
    • The aircraft group discussion was too short (3 people)
    • The Delta analysis panel of the software (3 people)
    • Since you emphasized on the importance of sampling through a filter, it would have been nice to go through the procedure on how to interpret the data when we sample through a filter, i.e. what fragments to change, and what are the nominal factors in those fragments observed by different instruments, rather than correcting for it while looking at a data set.
    • Wish: Examples of data interpretation.
    • I was interested in the mass fragmentation patterns of organics (maybe this was discussed in detail on Sunday when we were not there)
    • I think some more input by the users would be great. In former users meetings it was really a meeting of users for users, where every user was welcome to give some input and where everyone was able to present some of their own results and got some reaction of other users, which I think was a very good opportunity to get in contact with others and to get some feedback from others that is potentially extremely useful, especially for new users. This users meeting was more a large tutorial from the manufacturer and Jose with very little input from a selected group of users like Ann and Roya. I think there is some danger that the users meeting looses its unique character of a meeting where every user can share his/her results and problems
    • I was happy with topics covered. The tutorial was fun but possibly could have been longer to get more useful detail about data analysis out of it. Possibly a written summary (eg bullet points) of the main steps or points to be covered would be useful to have along side. I would also prefer more time on the instrument changes/upgrades which was a little rushed this year
    • lens transmission/collection efficiency (but we just don't understand it well enough at this point to present it in more detail

  5. What TOPICS (e.g. hardware upgrades, analysis software, quantification issues...) did we cover in TOO MUCH detail?

    • Nothing (13 people)
    • I think whatever was covered needed to be covered in that detail.
    • I felt that nothing was in too much details since I could catch the topics. This is partly because I have learned some topics from AAAR posters and presentations before the AMS meeting, especialy, about collection efficiency and a wire installation.
    • The analysis software tutorial was a bit tedious, but then again, I would say that... ;-)
    • The afternoon tutorial was too much detail for the time allotted
    • introductory sections, but these are necessary
    • Can't recall, my mind got saturated most days, and I don't even remember what was on what day
    • If any: hardware upgrades

  6. What ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS (e.g. length, organization of presentations, etc.) of the meeting did you find MOST USEFUL?

    • Everything
    • Not having to travel to far from the AAAR to get to the meeting, which saved a lot of time and money (3 people)
    • Having the morning/lunch/afternoon breaks put good breaks in between discussions so that we didn't get too tired.
    • The fast turnaround on the speakers. If one person had been talking for too long, it would have got tedious
    • length of talks was appropriate, breaks were frequent enough
    • As for organizational aspects, having a schedule and sticking to it is the best thing that can happen at one of those meetings
    • I think the overall length of the meeting was fine. It should not be longer and I think it can't be shorter than it was
    • All was about right for me in the time that was available
    • The timing of everything was great, liked the room, really liked the refreshments
    • Both length and order were fine. Also, the meeting room at Caltech was very nice
    • Length and order were fine. Found the discussions following/during presentations useful
    • No detailed presentation of what groups do but discussion/presentation about AMS

  7. What ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS of the meeting did you find LEAST USEFUL?

    • Nothing (6 people)
    • The tutorial should have been dealt with first... but I see you've already taken that point on board
    • Some talks were out of order -- IGOR software should have been introduced prior to some of the Saturday talks
    • Not having a gong to notify people when their time was up
    • I think the tutorial would have been placed better at the beginning of the meeting, so new users as well as more experienced users who are not completely up to date with the analysis program an the analysis procedures are all brought to the same level
    • could do with a (consistent) decent sized room with desks etc to place computers/notebooks on (+ power).
    • I didn't like the lunches (I don't like salads or fizzy drinks), and the length of the breaks should have been respected. We could have gone to the cafeteria at Caltech for lunch
    • not enough time for informal inter-group discussion. Schedule was too busy. tried to fit too much into the available time
    • I think the tutorial should be more organized. It would be nice to have a manual or some kind of document - we are probably putting one together, at least for our own use (something that summarizes step by step to James' analysis package).
    • Schedule was known only shortly in advence

  8. The tentative DATES FOR NEXT YEAR's (2004) AMS Users' Meeting are Sat. Oct. 9th (9 AM) till Mon. Oct. 11th (7 PM), with the intention of Monday being a full day. The meeting is tentatively planned to take place at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, right after the 2004 AAAR Conference (Oct. 4-8) also in Atlanta. Given these dates, are you likely to attend next year's meeting?

    • Yes (12 people)
    • Likely (6 people)
    • Unlikely (1 person)

    • Other details of the responses (the votes have already been counted above):
      • Yes, I will and hopefully (I really mean it!!) along with another student!
      • With the long summer field season and the IGAC meeting in September it is unlikely that I will be able to travel again in early October
      • No me gusta Atlanta. But I guess my attendance would be up to my advisor...
      • I plan to attend the next meeting, may be others from our AMS group. However it's always a major financial effort to send (many) people to the meeting (including AAAR fees approx. 2000 $ per person) so only a small part of our AMS users group will be able to participate.
      • It depends on funding
      • It is likely. But I am not sure yet because we will have another measurement campaign in October

  9. An alternative would be to have the AMS Users' Meeting in EUROPE right after the European Aerosol Conference (Budapest, Hungary, Sept. 6-10, 2004). Would you be likely to attend the meeting if it took place in Europe (perhaps in Budapest or Mainz)?

    • Yes (7 people)
    • Likely (2 people)
    • No (6 people)
    • Unlikely (4 people)

    • Other details of the responses (the votes have already been counted above):
      • Yes, I prefer Europe.
      • No, this overlaps with the IGAC conference http://www.igaconference2004.co.nz/
      • More than likely but it is the same week as the IGAC meeting in Christchurch
      • Hell yeah! but again my attendance is related to my advisors discretion
      • This would make things much easier for us - the whole group or at least a major part of it could attend
      • yes (I wouldn't miss it). I wasn't planning on attending the EAC but will attend the International Conference on Carbonaceous Particles in the Atmosphere in Vienna which is from Sept. 14-16, 2003. Hopefully, we could squeeze the AMS users meeting in before the 14th
      • Less likely, only because of funding

  10. What would be the RIGHT DURATION of the next (2004) AMS Users' Meeting from your point of view? (e.g. 2 days, 3 days, 4 days...)

    • 3 days (6 people)
    • 3-4 days (2 people)
    • 3 days at most
    • 3 days + 1 extra day for the die hards
    • 3 days for the general meeting, plus a 4th day for the aircraft issues
    • Probably 4 days at a more relaxed pace
    • At least 3 full days. I felt that we had to rush things a bit at Caltech because we had only 2 full days. I think having one additional full day will make it easier for discussions among the groups (things that are not necessarily scheduled as topics for discussions, but issues that come up as we think/listen during the meeting).
    • 3 days. 1st Doug's tutorial and discussion of James program. 2nd discussion of hardware i.e. CE and Transmission etc. 3rd Group meeting; remote, urban, airplane measurements, interpretation of organic aerosols etc
    • I think 3 days of meetings was about right. People start to switch off after that. However, 4 days with more time for informal chatting might be good
    • 3 days with posters and longer coffee breaks
    • As you indicate as this year but a full Monday for extra discussion of aircraft in particular
    • 3 days, as long as I don't get sick again. And one day of mandatory relaxation. So a total of 4 days

  11. The tentative ORGANIZATION FOR 2004 will be to start with a day devoted to an expanded version of Doug's data analysis tutorial. Subsequent days will focus on hardware and software issues and new developments, and detailed discussions of the progress made on the quantification issues. Based on feedback solicited at Caltech, we will plan to have all of the AMS-related AAAR posters up for the duration of the users meeting (as well as talk slides and other work that people wish to present only to the AMS Users). To help promote user interactions, breaks will be longer and we may plan on hosting a 2 or 3 hour poster session on the first or second day. What do you think of this plan?

    • Sounds good (9 people)
    • It's a good idea to go over the data analysis before going through the other issues. I think having the posters available for discussions will only be helpful if we have longer breaks so that we can read and talk about them during the breaks. Having the separate-formal poster session might be a redundancy to AAAR.
    • Good. Certainly we need to have a free discussion time for a couple of topics.
    • fine with a longer aircraft slot
    • This is an excellent idea. This gives grad students a better forum to present their work and to interact with other users
    • I think it is a good plan. It would be a good way for everyone to truly see what is going on within the community. I think a lot of people didn't see all the stuff at the conference, and having posters and such at the meeting would allow more interactions in the community
    • I think this is a great idea!
    • OK - but I find too many posters in one go tedious and difficult to stay alert for - so I would prefer more - shorter sessions rather than one long one in which I fall asleep/ brain dead half way through
    • I don't think we should have a poster session - not enough time. Poster discussions should be informal

  12. Do you have any SUGGESTIONS for the organization of next year's meeting?

    • Accommodation close to the meeting please (2 people)
    • We need to avoid taking a night flight back
    • Have more coffee. Also, we could have done with a hotel where they had an area in which we could congregate properly after hours. There should also have been a roundup of publications that have come out or have been submitted since last year
    • Could it possibly be later in the year (Nov or Dec). Could it possibly be attached to the fall AGU meeting in 2004?
    • Use of a gong, to notify people when time has elapsed
    • Avoid the boxed lunches. I would like more choice for lunch. Respect the length of the breaks
    • I think that as the various groups are getting better experienced in operation and analysis they potentially have something to contribute rather than just listening. While we call this a users meeting its really a training and update on issues meeting. We could consider having a session truly from a users forum perspective. Try and get more input from the "experienced" groups, have them present things that they think are instrument issues that they are working on characterizing. this would not include results from field measurements. This should stimulate discussion and get the groups more actively involved. For example, I think Ann is at this point where she is doing experiments geared to better characterizing/understanding the instrument. Ultimately, this meeting should be driven by the users
    • If there is a dinner where everybody goes, letīs have it in the first evening so new people can get first contacts with the rest early on

  13. Any other COMMENTS that you want to add?

    • keeping on the schedule is always a great practice
    • I want to thank you, Doug, John, Manjula and Tim for organizing another users meeting. The discussions were great and, as always, it's very nice to see everybody excited and open about things.
    • Last year, I felt a little bit boring.But this year I felt excited to listen to the discussion. Differences may come from the length of the AMS operation period. The AMS meeting may be very useful for those who have used the AMS for more than a few months and have got their own data. But it may not be useful for the very beginner.
    • Another very good and useful meeting
    • Thanks for putting in a load of effort (along with Doug and Tim) it was a great meeting
    • Thanks for the excellent organization of the AMS user meeting. I enjoyed it very much and and learned a lot
    • Thank you to all who contributed to the excellent user meeting!
    • Jose -- Thanks for your effort on arranging the meeting! See you next year
    • Keep it running! Great job Roya and Tim!!!
    • Thanks to all who organised the workshop, for the effort that was put into this. It was very worthwhile
    • The quality of the slides / presentations from the speakers was excellent - noticeably better than last year. I am keen to download the presentations from the website
    • I was really surprised at how well the meeting went, considering the number of users present was higher than it's ever been. Great job, Tim and Jose! Also, Tim did an excellent job keeping everyone (including Doug) on schedule
    • Thanks for organizing the meeting - it was very helpful and useful. You guys are certainly on the ball. Thanks again, it was a great learning tool.
    • Thanks to those who organized the meeting