[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) plot describe count
In a message dated 96-07-22 02:34:58 EDT, you write:
<< 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
>>
---------
If anybody in this world counts meteors without recording time, Magnitude and
shower association, they are in desparate need to learn from those that know
the International Method of recording meteor data if they have intention of
the data being used for scientific purposes. Counting sheer numbers of
meteors with no other data is a waste of time, unless the individual is doing
it for himself with no intention of anyone trying to use the counts. You
ask "cater to the novice or the more advanced observer?" I say cater to the
more advance observer and let the beginners learn from them. If you cater to
the novice, mediocre becomes the standard. Beginners are just that...they
need to learn what is accepted along with the terminology that goes with
meteor observing. If I receive data for NAMN from anyone who only sends
Meteor counts without the minimum data noted above, I will not forward it on
to IMO nor will I include them into the NAMN count. I will however tell them
their error and explain what is expected for scientific purposes. Hopefully
they will interpret this as a learning experience and not get totally
discouraged? For those who don't become totally discouraged, they will learn
an awful lot from this error and most likely produce more useful data the
next time. My intentions are to not lower the NAMN standard for quality data
just so that I can show an increase of active observers on the overall tally.
Quality is more important from a few observers than questionable material
from many.
George Z.
Follow-Ups: