The Second Annual Lowell Observatory Fall Workshop

Description of working groups

In the two working group session, attendees divided into 5- to 6- member groups to debate specific questions on issues relevant to the workshop. There were five groups in each working group session. Between the second working group session and the plenary session, the results from the ten group meetings were compiled on transparencies by the SOC (Hall, Lockwood, & Radick) and the plenary session moderator (White). These were presented for debate by the entire workshop during the plenary session. On Tuesday, therefore, we tried to move from the opinions of individuals (our panelists) to opinions of small groups (the working groups) to the opinion of the entire workshop (in the plenary session).

Our panelists began the process by giving us quite a bit to think about. Following the coffee break, we began the first of two working group sessions. The five groups in both the morning and afternoon working group sessions were comprised of four or five attendees and were moderated by Ayres, Buzasi, Garrison, Lockwood, and Wade.

Each of the five working groups was given the same set of three questions. The specific questions appear below, but the general issues raised in each were as follows.

Question 1: What have workers done so far? Given the guidelines that (a) solar analogs and/or twins must be identified on the basis of well-defined observational parameters, and (b) our direction for future research in this area will be clearest with a firm understanding of how the subject has developed over the past two decades, we ask which observational parameters have been used in finding solar analogs, and with what degree of success, and which parameters have been ignored thus far?
Question 2: Where do we go from here? What are the best observational parameters to use in defining true solar twins, and which of these are essential? Is it possible to rank the most desirable parameters in order of preference, thereby setting up some kind of filter for defining a true solar twin?
Question 3: What is the best current solar twin?

So that the SOC would have some chance of compiling the results from ten working groups into a coherent whole, the moderators were supplied with standardized, quantitative forms. Although some of the questions did not lend themselves ideally to quantization, this at least gave the workshop a firm starting point at the plenary session.

On the following pages, we have tabulated the results and comments made by each group in response to the questions. The group format was a relaxes, 75-minute, roundtable discussion that the moderators [theoretically] kept moving along. In fact, our moderators did a wonderful job of corralling the opinions of their group members, and the somewhat experimental format of this part of the meeting turned out to be quite successful.

The working groups were (groups 1-5 morning, 6-10 afternoon, moderators in brackets):

1: [Ayres], Corbally, Giampapa, Skiff, Soderblom
2: [Buzasi], Dobson, Guinan, Hall, Rottman
3: [Garrison], Cayrel, Glushneva, Harvey
4: [Lockwood], Guedel, Howard, Henry, Henry, de Mello, Schleicher
5: [Wade], Franz, Friel, Grundy, Radick, White
6: [Wade], Dahn, Glushneva, Guinan, Howard, Schleicher
7: [Ayres], Cayrel, Guedel, de Mello, White
8: [Buzasi], Franz, Friel, Corbally
9: [Garrison], Grundy, Radick, Rottman, Skiff
10: [Lockwood], Giampapa, Hall, Harvey, Soderblom

[Contents]