Please keep it the way it is.
I think the technical aspects are often intertwined with the scientific. If we try to separate the two, those who are less interested in the technical aspects may lose their appreciation for how difficult it can be to get reliable data. I don't say this flippantly - I think there are too many scientists who want to float above the machines and the detailed knowledge required to keep them running the way they should. Then there is the frustrating, tedious but often creative process of adapting them to new applications. If you don't appreciate these things, how can you ever know whether your data is any good, or what questions to ask when confronted with data that seems anomalous? Perhaps I am biased by hard experience, but I think younger scientists and students tend to think, more so than in the past, that these instruments are like household appliances that will yield publishable data with the push of a button and don't want to be bothered with details.
The best scientists are those with calloused hands.
Harry W. Read, PhD
Dept of Soil Science
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1525 Observatory Drive
Madison, WI 53705 USA