[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) The AMS
Hi Mark,
At 11:30 PM 7/30/96 -0400, you asked:
>Was there a specific reason it was decided not to continue interest in showers?
The professional shift was made by Dr. Olivier. My understanding (which is
fuzzy) is that after being "outstripped" in the area of shower research by
the meteor radars in the 1960's, Olivier shifted emphasis to the Sporadic
flux area because the radars did not operate continuously. He went looking
for a different niche for his work.
With regard to sending observations in to the AMS, it should be noted that
observations made during times of shower activity are still desireable for
the Sporadics they contain, and also facilitate the subtraction of showers
from the Sporadic flux. It is recognized that amateur interest will always
be higher in the area of showers than in making Sporadic meteor observations
(an evening in March when I was seeing a whopping 2-3 per hour comes to
mind). Thus, most amateur observations occur during shower periods and
these are still useful. Meteor news gives a quarterly summary of observed
shower activity.
>I spoke with Dr. Meisel about this in the past, and thought the program was
>determined to not be feasible. As I explained to him, I am interested in
>this method, so please keep me advised of how the program progresses.
yes, the Newton has proven to be rather unprogrammable for this purpose, but
we are still exploring.
>I agree with you Jim. As a result of the 1993 conference, were formal
>arrangements made to share data between AMS and IMO. I recall you mentioned
>fireball data I believe, but has that been all so far?
Yes, this has been all to date.
TAke care,
Jim Richardson
Graceville, FL
Richardson@DigitalExpdot com