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

Re: (meteorobs) Observing Standards

WOW!!!!!  What a difference a day makes in the tone of this mail list. Hey
Bob, makes me wish I HAD stayed at home on sick leave. ;)  Somebody must
have eaten something this mornin' that didn't quite agree with them...

Sorry for the delay in adding my $0.02, and thus prolonging this discussion,
but I just got home. Also, most of you who know me, know I am normally the
diplomatic type, but tonight when a flame melted the <Esc> key off my
keyboard, I decided it was time to respond. Don't worry Lew, there's no
flaming below, only some "frank" statements...so,

******************************************************************************
.....................................to everyone involved, what follows is
not meant as a flame to any party on this list, nor should it be considered
an attack on anyone's observing methods. If anyone sees it that way, I
appologize here, in public, beforehand.......................................
******************************************************************************

It has been written:
>The purpose of these groups was to standardize the method.

Well, this is partly true, at least where NAMN is involved. Keep in mind
that the NAMN was actually founded by TWO people, and is now administered by
TWO coordinators, one being George Zay and the other being myself. As a
founder, I can state, and it is written in the NAMN Guide, that the NAMN was
founded:

"...in June 1995 by George Zay and Mark Davis. The Network has three main
purposes: to recruit amateurs into the ranks of meteor observing; once
recruited, provide guidance, instructions and training in the methods of
meteor observing; and finally, to coordinate as many North American
observations as possible to insure extensive coverage of sporadic and meteor
shower activity."

The first purpose is straightforward and has been going well. The second
purpose above is what George is speaking of, and he is absolutely correct.
Early on we adopted the IMO method as our standard, and have taught this
method to new observers. I will continue to teach this method to those
starting out. But, nothing in the above quote says anything about NAMN not
accepting or participating in discussions of other techniques. Therefore, at
least from the perspective of this NAMN Coordinator, feel free to post your
observing views to the list...I can't say I'll always agree with them, but
will say you have a right to state them. (And for the record, my personal
observations ARE carried out in accordance with the current IMO standards. I
use both the star count charts and under normal circumstances, place my
field of view about 20 to 40 degrees away from the radiant. But as I stated
earlier, I have tried both ways, and was not able to detect a difference!)

>I'm trying to teach the standard, but the dozen or so so-called individual
>"experts" here have a tendency to custom make their own "standard".

I certainly don't consider myself an "individual expert." If I chose who
would be the experts here on the list, I would look toward Gary, Bob and
George G., so I do thank you for the compliment, and for placing me with
such fine company. :>

>Listening to some folks here about the different ways they are going to
>determine their LM's and How they are going to observe despite the accepted
>standards is very individualistic and destructive.

I gotta disagree with ya here...to me, and this is IMHO, all that was going
on was a discussion of technique. If no one ever discussed this, all
radiants would be stationary, the IMO wouldn't have been founded in the
first place, and we would still occupy the center of the universe. All that
was taking place was a discussion of how people were going to carry out
observations. Maybe after the observations are over, we should convene back
here and discuss the results of both methods. I might be wrong, but doesn't
that sound like science? 

>If you want out...get out. This will free me up considerably to
>help those who really desire to learn and be part of the big picture
>...rather than a countless fast moving sporadic.

To me, the above is more individualistic and destructive than any of the
topics that were discussed, and besides, IMO accepts "countless fast moving
sporadic"(s).

Clear, and peaceful skies to all,

Mark Davis
MeteorObs@charlestondot net
Awendaw, South Carolina, USA
Coordinator, North American Meteor Network (NAMN)
Assistant Recorder, ALPO Meteors Section
===================================================
Visit the NAMN home page at:
	http://medicine.wustldot edu/~kronkg/namn.html
===================================================