[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Plotting and shower association
At 04:29 PM 10/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Wayne Hally wrote:
>>To insure that I don't influence my plotz, I make it a practice not to know
>>precisely where the radiants are when I'm plotting. Therefore I'm never really
>>quite sure which showers I might be looking at.
>
>I've always wondered about that little snag in the IMO plotting method!
What you
>do is surely good observing practice for us newbies, especially when observing
>minor or suspect shower radiants. The problem is that IMO expects shower
>associations along with all the other data during a plotting session: and I
>COULD add that info during the analysis afterwards, but I feel kind of funny
>doing it post facto instead, so I generally make a *suspect* association right
>after I plot the meteor (and occasionally before), but before I note
magnitude,
>etc. What do the "less new salts" think on this one?
Lew,
It is my impression, and this could be wrong although I scanned through the
IMO handbook, that observers should not know the *precise* location of a
radiant. As an observer gains experience, it would almost be impossible to
expect them not to know where the radiant is in general terms. Wayne is
correct in not wanting to know where the radiant is so as to not influence
his plots, but I do not think this means not knowing the general area a
radiant lies in.
Concerning doing the shower association in the field or afterwards at the
desk, I have no preference either way, and feel comfortable doing it at the
desk. The IMO handbook briefly mentions shower association while observing,
and basically all it says is to leave that column blank and fill it out
later. So Lew, making those shower association after the plot should not
cause any problems, AS LONG AS you do a "regular" shower association
afterwards. If you skip the desk analysis and accept your "suspect"
association, then you are defeating the benefits of plotting. In my own
case, I also make a field note regarding shower membership, but this is
always confirmed later on. It also carries no weight at the desk...if my
analysis shows it was a sporadic and not an Orionid as I noted in the field,
the meteor "officially" becomes a sporadic.
Mark Davis
MeteorObs@charlestondot net