[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: (meteorobs) The AMS



Hi folks,

I wanted to address some of the questions and misconceptions arising from my
post last Friday describing the AMS.  Your replies finally reached my
mailbox last night since Murphy's Law dictated that my mail server would go
down about the same time that MeteorObs came back up.

Here goes:

The AMS still considers its visual observing program to be very important.
Current research interest in the potential scientific value of amateur
operated radiometeor stations does notdetract from the continued importance
of collecting visual data on the Sporadic meteor flux.  As it has done in
the past, the AMS is simply exploring different avenues for amateur
contribution to meteor Science.  Emphasis may shift from one aspect to
another over the course of time, but all programs are still important and
should be continued.  

As Lewis indicated in an earlier post,  in addition to continuing to collect
visual data on paper, we are also exploring the use of notebook computers
for the collection of visual data in a form readily useful for statistical
analysis, rather than having to go through the additional step of data entry
from forms.  We would also like to develope  the ability to gather data from
the older forms using new scanning technology.

As has already been pointed out, there are some important differences
between the visual observing emphasis of the AMS and the NAMN/IMO.  The AMS
is primarily interested in a long term study of the Sporadic meteor flux,
while the NAMN/IMO concentrates its effort on studying meteor streams and
showers.  The AMS seeks to maintain a large pool of observers of various
ages and observing skill levels while the NAMN/IMO seeks to groom expert
observers only.  The AMS seeks to retain and serve all of its members, while
the NAMN/IMO will not "miss" any observers which fail to meet its standards
(according to George Z).

Observers for the AMS may progress from making hourly counts, to collecting
data on each observed meteor, to making trajectory plots at their own pace
and only up to the level to which they are comfortable.  AMS Bulletins have
been issued to give instruction in this area, as well as occasional articles
on making visual observations published in Meteor news and submitted by our
more experienced observers.  Further publications are planned for the
future, as well as expanding our Web site.  As I stated previously,
observing forms for other organizations such as IMO, ALPO, or BAA are all
accepted, as long as it is reported where other copies of the data have been
sent.  This helps to prevent duplicate analysis of the same data when
researchers use multiple organizations as data sources.  The AMS Annual
Report is only used as a basic summary report for each year of data collected.

It should be apparent from these discussions that the AMS and the NAMN/IMO
are complimentary organizations rather than competitive.  The visual
observing "experts" of the NAMN/IMO  will find that their observations are
welcome by the AMS, whether they are members of the AMS or not, and these
observations will be put toward a different research emphasis from that of
the IMO.  In order to continue our educational goals, the AMS will continue
to invite the young, the novice, and the casual observer to work with us,
regardless of their expertise level.  The  serious visual meteor observer
should be able to make contributions to both the AMS and the NAMN/IMO
without any "impediments."

The topic sentence of the last paragraph of the post, in which I stated that
"it is unfortunate that there are amateurs and observers who feel that the
AMS is an impediment to their activities," was circumspect and perhaps
unclear in meaning.  I was not refering to an observational impediment, but
infered a broader meaning.  To be more blunt, I feel that it is unfortunate
that some amateurs have an overt antagonism toward the AMS because the AMS
has failed to support the goals which they consider to be important.  I find
such antagonism and criticism to be devisive and counter productive for the
American meteor observing community.

I have always despised the conflict between the AMS and the IMO, and have
worked towards its resolution, at least to the point of being able to
respect each other and coexist.  Bob Lunsford will recall my work in 1990 in
which I requested and then analized the IMO methods for data reduction of
visual shower data.  i then published a portion of this analysis in a long
series of articles (six total) in Meteor News, centered around calculating a
Zenith Hourly Rate and the associated equations.  Even though the more
technical passages and reference lists were edited out for space
considerations <FROWN>, my purpose was to begin educating the AMS membership
and officers to start bridging the gap between the two groups.  The 1993
conference helped a lot, but we still have a ways to go with some
individuals.  I think we should all learn to accept our differences in
research philosophy and work together to forward Meteor Science as a whole.

The olive branch is out guys, if you will take it.

Take care, everyone,

Jim Richardson
Graceville, FL
Richardson@DigitalExpdot com


Follow-Ups: