Re: (meteorobs) June Lyrids

• To: meteorobs@latradedot com
• Subject: Re: (meteorobs) June Lyrids
• From: Lew Gramer <dedalus>
• Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 11:41:34 -0400
• In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Jun 96 22:36:57 EDT." <01I5IZOD6P5E8ZEKCF@InfoAvedot net>
• Reply-To: meteorobs@latradedot com
• Sender: owner-meteorobs

I guess what I take away from all this is that I should note them as JLY for 
non-IMO reporting (ALPO, AMS), but as SPO for IMO reporting. Is there any way I 
could "automate" this for NAMN? (Assuming I observe any JLYs! :>)

As Mark suggested, I could add a note for each "apparent JLY", but specify it as 
a SPO in the shower column? And then perhaps produce TWO magnitude distributions 
on the form, one incorporating JLYs and the other treating them as SPOs? This 
would allow NAMN to report these meteors as JLYs to ALPO, and as SPOs to IMO, 
all from one convenient form. Any (kindly) thoughts on this appreciated. ;>

Related question: Would this also be a reasonable procedure for some of the 
other more doubtful "non-IMO" showers, e.g. the Ophiuchid or Scorpiid complexes? 
Again, assuming I ever see any... :)

							Lew

• Re: (meteorobs) June Lyrids
• From: Mark Davis <MeteorObs@Charlestondot net>

• Prev: (meteorobs) June Lyrids, Plotting, And Meteor Orgs
• Next: Re: (meteorobs) Micrometeorites
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread