(meteorobs) Geminid comparisons

[Kim Youmans]

Hi Norman and all,

>>>If you get to observe in fully dark skies, you would easily be double my 
>>>rates.
I have to wonder, really, how much of a difference it would truely 
make....at least, from my best at around +6.6 and yours, at +7.3.  To flog 
an expired pony once more, my observations with Lew, Bob, & Wayne (and 
Cathy!) seemed to demonstrate that I *may* not be able to experience a 
truely dark sky like many of the rest of you.  Bob and Lew were both able to 
star-count much higher than I was though we were all at the same spot.  I 
never counted higher than +6.6 (if I recall correctly) while at times the 
wunderkinds had a sky better than +7.  I looked up and saw a sky that seemed 
no different than the one I had back at home. I couldn't see the gegenshien 
despite Lew's pointing it out to me. But my rates were comparable to, though 
lower than, Bob's.  Lew was seeing quite a bit more.
   In the past I've reported to the list about the "flashes" I often see 
that I can't quite pin down (and therefore don't report).  I have a feeling 
these are +6 and fainter meteors that Bob, Lew, Jure, and others would 
actually see.  On occasion I've had observing partners confirm these 
flashes, so most of them are not visual artifacts.  I think my motion 
perception is very good and makes up for what my eyes can't see (in terms of 
faint starlight).  So I may do as well in +6.5 skies as someone else does at 
+7.  Maybe.

Kim Y.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Norman W. McLeod III" <nmcleod at peganet.com>
To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:18 PM
Subject: (meteorobs) Geminid comparisons


> Kim,
>
> Lots to respond to.  Similar discussions have been done in the past.
>
>
>>         Amazing that you and I could reach such completely opposite 
>> conclusions.   From *my* single-person, and therefore unscientific, 
>> viewpoint, the Geminids were mighty strong this year.
>
> No doubt about that, when you are capable of seeing rates that high. 
> 100/hr will blow almost anybody away.  But I have past years to compare 
> with.  This is similar to Wes in Oregon being impressed with today's 
> Perseids when I have had quite a decline after 1991.  Wes has almost three 
> times my perception.
>
>
>>My rates topped out at over 100 per hour yet I had a sky almost a full 
>>magnitude lower than yours -- this despite the fact that we are both at 
>>very similar longitudes.
>
> Just imagine what you would have seen with me in 1979.  Having you in a 
> better sky as well, we are talking 200/hr.  Something to drool over. 
> There was an inexperienced observer with me that night, Chuck McRae, who 
> did see 190/hr just counting.  A few other occasions got Chuck established 
> quite firmly at double my perception.
>
> Bill Gates never did get to see the Geminids from New Mexico, always 
> clouded out in December.  We were just itching to find out what he could 
> come up with -- I would think 250/hr easily.  For years Bill was doubting 
> the rest of us a little on the vast superiority of the Geminids over the 
> Perseids.  By 1977 he finally began to relent, but he disappeared in 1981.
>
>
>>Dec 13.294  07:03   261.553     30    212    140  +- 10...........  with 
>>140 being the ZHR.
>
> The ZHR's have numerous individuals that see more than I do.  Hence the 
> final result is fully twice what I personally see.  The general public 
> sees about what I do.
>
>
>>I'd never argue that the Geminids aren't on their decline, but from what 
>>I've seen, you wouldn't be able to judge that by this year's return.
>
> You have to have the earlier years to be able to tell.
>
>
>>I did experience the bright post-max Geminids.
>
> Glad to hear it's still there.  I didn't get to cover hours late enough, 
> but in the past it had always kicked in early on Dec 13/14.
>
>
>>   And, though this is a leap year, the maximum occured at roughly its 
>> expected time, not a day early,
>
> No problem here.  I specified that American longitudes only would have the 
> highest rates a day early, not that the time of maximum itself had 
> shifted.  My expectation was right on the money.
>
>
>>It can't be my perception....I have yet to be convinced that I have 
>>anything other than average perception -- One night's observing with Bob 
>>and Lew assured me of that!  Please tell Joan I said hi!
>
> But it is perception all the way.  (Bill Gates thought he was normal, 
> observing from  "great mountain skies"   in New Mexico.  Once he joined us 
> in the Keys in 1973, an  "inferior"  sea-level site, it took only 10 
> minutes to find out that Gates had extraordinary perception.)  There have 
> been quite a few other times when you report rates about 50% higher than I 
> do, in sky LM a magnitude poorer.  If you get to observe in fully dark 
> skies, you would easily be double my rates.
>
> Bob and Lew have consistently had double my perception also, for their 
> entire observing careers.   Bob has always been a U.S. Perseid champion 
> along with Paul Jones.  Lew was with me starting at age 12.  He seemed 
> similar to me at first in rates, but quickly about doubled me.
>
> Two ZHR's need to be done -- one for the general population, and one for 
> experienced meteor observers.  The second group will have ZHR's twice the 
> first, going strictly by observation.  More high perceptions materialized 
> after the 1960's as interest in meteor observing increased.  There was a 
> time when I was seeing about the same rates as most other contemporary 
> active observers.  After 1970 I gradually fell further and further behind 
> as high perceptions were coming out of the woodwork.  There is a natural 
> bias toward the high-perception side.  People that don't see many meteors 
> will lost interest sooner and drop out.  The ability to see more meteors 
> will get the blood moving and sustain interest for much longer.  I would 
> not have held interest this long if I were at 80% of my perception level.
>
> There are several indicators that I am normal with respect to the general 
> population.  In the early 1980's Jeff Wood in Perth had a large group of 
> school observers, 50 or more.  My perception landed right in the middle of 
> this group.  In 1973 with 6 of us in the Keys, 2 of them were seeing about 
> 15-20% more than I, with 2 others about that amount less.  Right in the 
> middle again.  Gates was the last one, almost 4 times our rates -- I am 
> setting him aside for this comparison.  In my earliest days with a group 
> of 6 of us, I personally saw the most !  How misled I was over that, 
> thinking I had very good eyes for meteors -- until someone else for the 
> 1963 Perseids in the Keys saw 50% more.  I couldn't understand how anyone 
> could see more than I did, especially that much more, having never been 
> beaten before.  Finally, the general long-term rates for some of the major 
> showers are about the same as I became used to seeing, e.g. Orionids 25, 
> Lyrids 15 (before 1982), Eta Aquarids 10-15, Leonids (off-years) 15, 
> sporadics overall average about 7, early hours 3-5, late hours 10-15.
>
> Onward to the Quadrantids.  Good news for American zones on this one -- it 
> is our turn for a good year.  Two cycles back, in 1997, I saw 61/hr Quads 
> but with a thick crescent moon.  Of all the rotten luck, 2004 isn't 
> moonless either.  Just glad it's past last quarter.
>
> Norman
>
>
>
>
> Norman W. McLeod III
> Staff Advisor
> American Meteor Society
>
> Fort Myers, Florida
> nmcleod at peganet.com
> ---
> Mailing list meteorobs
> meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs