02-23-2022, 06:56 PM
For those thinking I'm trying to set up a database in Excel, been there and done that. Not fun.
As far as programming it, if this was something that was to be used on a regular basis it would be programmed and not done in Excel. However, you can use it to sketch out what needs done and in what order it needs done in. It allows for a bit more flexibility, and errors are immediately seen.
The Excel file itself will not ever reach the GB range, as I'm working with a small subset of possible data. This is only what the instrument reports that it is using, not what the researcher is actually seeing from the biological samples. The biological data is indeed in a database of sorts, with specialized and recognized software to analyze it (which is the next step after I determine whether or not the instrument performed correctly for that day). The software the instrument uses to examine the instrumental data (as opposed from the biological data) was confusing and difficult to read; I tried to pick it apart in Excel, and I now have a better understanding of what it was doing. My confidence in what I'm seeing has increased.
The biological data is often a million data points (particles it counted), with each point (particle) having additional data from each of the detectors that were in use. So, ten detectors each giving data for each of the million data points, gives ten million so far. And that is a small file. Excel will choke and die on this. Again, there is software to analyze the biological data, and it works very well. Any questions I have had regarding how it works have been answered quickly, and any pertinent sources cited. I'm not asking to "steal" their stuff (frankly don't care to even try), but only to increase my understanding of what is going on.
Personal rant regarding instrumentation/data:
Unfortunately, it appears that many manufacturers tend to think that the target audience for instrumentation happens to be homogeneous: if you are targeting toward immunologists, then they all are biologists and giving them the technical aspects of the instrument is a waste of time. Don't give them physics or chemistry as they're not going to understand it (thus, it becomes a black box and I thoroughly loathe black boxes). I have asked at seminars where they were demonstrating an instrument various things, and the talk-around and not-answers I got led me to believe the sales folks didn't really know their product. And in some cases, others noticed it as well.
I live for data. The more data the better. Instrumentation is my "jam" as they used to say. But I'm not a biologist, much less an immunologist, and treating me as if I am only annoys me.
As far as programming it, if this was something that was to be used on a regular basis it would be programmed and not done in Excel. However, you can use it to sketch out what needs done and in what order it needs done in. It allows for a bit more flexibility, and errors are immediately seen.
The Excel file itself will not ever reach the GB range, as I'm working with a small subset of possible data. This is only what the instrument reports that it is using, not what the researcher is actually seeing from the biological samples. The biological data is indeed in a database of sorts, with specialized and recognized software to analyze it (which is the next step after I determine whether or not the instrument performed correctly for that day). The software the instrument uses to examine the instrumental data (as opposed from the biological data) was confusing and difficult to read; I tried to pick it apart in Excel, and I now have a better understanding of what it was doing. My confidence in what I'm seeing has increased.
The biological data is often a million data points (particles it counted), with each point (particle) having additional data from each of the detectors that were in use. So, ten detectors each giving data for each of the million data points, gives ten million so far. And that is a small file. Excel will choke and die on this. Again, there is software to analyze the biological data, and it works very well. Any questions I have had regarding how it works have been answered quickly, and any pertinent sources cited. I'm not asking to "steal" their stuff (frankly don't care to even try), but only to increase my understanding of what is going on.
Personal rant regarding instrumentation/data:
Unfortunately, it appears that many manufacturers tend to think that the target audience for instrumentation happens to be homogeneous: if you are targeting toward immunologists, then they all are biologists and giving them the technical aspects of the instrument is a waste of time. Don't give them physics or chemistry as they're not going to understand it (thus, it becomes a black box and I thoroughly loathe black boxes). I have asked at seminars where they were demonstrating an instrument various things, and the talk-around and not-answers I got led me to believe the sales folks didn't really know their product. And in some cases, others noticed it as well.
I live for data. The more data the better. Instrumentation is my "jam" as they used to say. But I'm not a biologist, much less an immunologist, and treating me as if I am only annoys me.