(meteorobs) Nice variety of Fireballs occured.

meteoreye at comcast.net meteoreye at comcast.net
Sat Oct 6 18:40:04 EDT 2007


Well there have been many "casual comments" lately, and they should be examined as to scientific supportability. We need to keep our eyes grounded in reality and the data in a form that allows scientific analysis. That's why I whined so much about the pure "counting" of the recent Aurigid outburst. Without LM, and magnitude data on the meteors, it's a "casual" data point, not suitable for serious analysis. And that's really sad, since it would have taken only a small effort to ecord such data.

It was you who used the term fireball, so can you answer the question as the the visual magnitude of the objects?

Wayne

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: <stange34 at sbcglobal.net> 

> This was, and is, a casual comment not intended to be used for precise data 
> gathering. My particular system is designed to detect unusually large & 
> interesting Fireballs only and not as a fireball or meteor data base entry. 
> 
> The comment was structured to indicate tonight should be a good night for 
> observing. 
> Nothing more. 
> 
> YCSentinel 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "drobnock" 
> To: 
> Sent: 2007/10/06 09:49 
> Subject: (meteorobs) Nice variety of Fireballs occured. 
> 
> 
> >I apologize for this rant, BUT..... 
> > 
> > This is a bit disconcerting when the following statement is made: 
> > 
> > "Ranging from what I CALL category 3 & 4. 
> > Category 3 means medium brightness and more than 1 second duration. 
> > Category 4 means Fainter and 1 second duration." 
> > 
> > I do believe there are standards established for classification of 
> > visual fireballs. It may be better at this time to use the standard 
> > language rather than interject a new system that is not universally 
> > accepted.. 
> > 
> > If it is a fireball, then stating it it is brighter than -4 to -3 
> > mag. with a duration of x secs, most observer would understand the 
> > significance of the visual observation. There was a discussion on the 
> > classification of fireball on this site Fri, 9 Jul 1999 22:07:47 EDT. 
> > 
> > I believe the various data bases do not have the categories suggested. 
> > If categories are to be used, then a discussion has to be held where 
> > there is a common standard for the data. Not a an arbitrary 
> > identification. 
> > 
> > 
> > George John Drobnock 
> > 
> > --- 
> > Mailing list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org 
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email: owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org 
> > http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs 
> > 
> 
> 
> --- 
> Mailing list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email: owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org 
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs 


More information about the Meteorobs mailing list