[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) June Lyrids
Hi Everyone,
It appears that I began a lengthy discussion on the June Lyrids when I
posted how I personally handle reporting these minor shower meteors. As I am
trying to play "catch-up" after returning home, I won't respond to each
message, but wish to add something to the thread, so will group most of my
responses in this one message.
First of all, keep in mind that reporting a JLY to IMO as a "Note" is just
the way I do it...but one that seems to work. Just because some observers,
or even group of observers have not observed the JLYs lately, does not mean
they do not exist. This is actually a reason to observe - to see what's is
or is not going on with a shower(s) and/or the sporadics. In my case, I have
observed them, but have to admit at very low rates as the IMO indicates.
For those of you wondering if this thread indicates a discussion or a
controvery, I believe it is a discussion. The nature of scientific inquiry
requires the questioning of what is believed, and just because IMO or NAMN,
or George and I and Gary say something, does not guarantee you can take it
to the bank. I would be the first person wanting to meet the person or
observing group that knows everything about meteors. But at the same time,
observers and observing groups must work together. That is why I, again
personally, try to please everyone, as I believe Bob put it, when reporting
observations.
Based on what I have heard lately, the "official" policy of the groups in
question is as follows: IMO - JLYs are not recognized; ALPO - JLYs are
recognized; AMS - JLYs are recognized; and lastly NAMN - JLYs are not
recognized. By recognized, what I mean is reported as (not as a note). As a
co-founder of NAMN with George, we agreed early on to use the IMO visual
shower list and have stuck with it. A major reason is that this would insure
that all the efforts put in by the group, especially the beginners, would be
included in the worldwide database of data IMO has. I also have to agree
with Bob that the IMO showers are a lot easier for a first-time observer to
monitor.
Since all NAMN observations arrive to me at some point (Wayne and Bob :> ),
I guess I could be considered the person that "archives" the data for NAMN.
Once I or George receive the observations, both IMO and ALPO get the same
observation, so you may want to consider my method of reporting JLYs (and
Lew, actually all similar showers). But when you receive your copy of the
NAMN Newsletter I put out, those JLYs will be listed as sporadics.
I hope my rambling here has benefitted some of you concerning the minor
shower list question. Just like the NAMN, my work in meteors is evolving,
(for the better I hope), but I will be the first to admit I am *not* that
person that knows everything about meteor observing. I'm just here because I
love it. So I would welcome any comments, suggestions and hints on better
ways to do things. This is what I have gotten from this mailing list...so
thanks Lew, for setting it up!!
Mark