[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) plot describe count
This is sure not a big issue, but I thought I'd put my $0.02 in...
To reinforce Norm's point on this one a little bit, I was somewhat confused
when I first started reading the IMO & NAMN material across the net!
Because I naturally assumed that when someone wrote "count" or "counting",
they meant "counting", as opposed to the old "data collecting" or
"describing" which I fondly remembered from my adolescent amateur days...
Whether or not IMO, NAMN (or I for that matter) consider it useful to
simply "count" the number of meteors seen, there are a large number of
people in the world - some of them maybe not even amateur astronomers - who
regularly do just that: they lay out under the sky for the Perseid maximum
and "count" the number of meteors they see for the night or whatever
period. Many amateurs also keep a "count" of the meteors they see in a
night of telescope observing. Clearly some confusion could result for
people not intimate with the IMO and its terminology.
The con is of course that the IMO and its many contributors are very
widespread, and already use the term "count" for describing meteor details
sans plots. What to do: cater to the novice, or the more advanced observer?
Terrible problem! :>
Lew
===============================================================================
Karen Simmons & Lew Gramer lewkaren@tiacdot net http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren
===============================================================================
Follow-Ups: