[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Visual magnitude
Lew wrote:
> This is referring to the provision that meteor data collected
> under skies with LMs below 5.0 (or so) are not useful for
> rate analysis, because of the large correction factors
> involved?
No no. The 5.0 limit is to avoid rates which 'consists' of mainly a correction
rather than an observation of meteors. I also set this limit to avoid too much
work with the input, actually with observations which will most probably be
never used in an analysis. But the limit is not a strict one---in the case of
unusual events, shower maxima and things like those, I do enter below-5.0
observations.
> What are the factors that contribute to this divergence?
I am not aware of the details and reasons. I can only state the experience that
lms for stars and meteors tend to diverge under unusual conditions (maybe also
under veryvery good skies the observer is not accustomed with), and that this
divergence is different for different observers. I think the main difference
between meteors and stars is their motion but it would not be expected to cause
any change in lm for both under bright skies. The size of a meteor is small---
does somebody know angular sizes of average say +3 meteors? On photographs faint
meteors (fainter than say -2) look as wide as stars, so it can't be much more
than a few arcminutes.
Thank you for clarifying the optimal magnitfication. In respect to deep-sky I
well understand what it means---actually sounds like a helpful tool indeed. Was
interpreting the term meteorwise.
Rainer
Follow-Ups: