[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Observing Standards
George Zay wrote:
>individualistic and destructive.
I think George has brought up two issues (at least) in his responses to this
thread. Both issues were important to raise, IMHO, and sincere thanks to George
for bringing them up:
1) There may be problems with comparing rates and other data from different
observers, if they're using different methods of calculating LM. If so, then the
IMO's databases may already contain a WHOLE LOT of data which has this problem!
We've had at least four different, prolific observers already mentioned on this
list, two of which are actually associated with the governance of the IMO (!),
who sometimes use the comparison star method instead of star counts for LMs...
This seems to imply that, if George is right, it'd be a real good idea to find
out exactly how much of a difference is introduced into LMs by the two methods
of measurement. My take on this is: because so much of the individual perception
function of each IMO observer is currently unmeasured and even unquantified,
(not to mention uncertainties in the current theory of ZHR correction itself!),
any noise that might be introduced by these two different ways of arriving at
the same number would most likely be negligible. (And if so, the comparison
method has some real advantages to it, IM*V*HO.)
But until this can be conclusively DEMONSTRATED, I have to agree with George and
Wayne that it's better for IMO observers to use the same method of LM measure.
And in fact, that's what I intend to continue doing. (Which I clearly stated in
my last message on the subject by the way. What my message offered was feedback
as requested by a representative of the IMO, not a direct challenge to anyone's
authority. - I'd advise everyone to carefully read folks' messages before
sending out your responses, y'all... Otherwise, you're doing the list
subscribers and yourself a disservice.) Which leads to the second issue...
2) Abrasive language is not conducive to scientific (even amateur scientific)
debate. Raising valid issues of method or intrepretation (like the one raised
above) is essential to good debate, and ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE for this list!
However, using language like "a lot of babel [sic]" and "If you want out...get
out" can't be tolerated in focused public forums like this. (Especially when
it's directed at the list admin. ;>>) I would genuinely hate to exclude ANYONE
from these discussions, let alone one of the NAMN founders and one of the most
prolific meteor observers in the world. So please, please, as I've asked before,
keep this in mind in your responses everybody.
Thanks, and clear skies to all,
Lew
Follow-Ups:
References: