[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re[2]: (meteorobs) LEONIDS-1996: ZHRs in So. Calif
NORM writes:
>If my results were run through the formula, I would probably shrink to ZHR
>15-20. Let's get real here!! That's not the way it was!
Well, Norm,
Thank you for your comments. First, let me say, Bob has told me that
you are possibly one of the most experienced and senior meteor observers on
this list (if not in the USA) so I greatly appreciate your time to look at
my post and respond. Though I'm still debating how helpful "lets get real"
and "that's not the way it was!" are as scientific criticism.
In the presentation of our data, I made no claims of "These data
reflect the way it REALLY was". I presented our observational results and
clearly indicated using the methodology as outlined in the 1994
Jenniskens paper. Seems like you really don't have issue with our data,
rather you have clear problems with the rationale and development of ZHR
calcs as outlined by Dr Jennisken's. I agree with your criticism of the
overcorrecting for lower radiant elavtions. None of our calcs were done
with radiant lower than 10deg. I also have a problem, as you do, with what
happens to ZHR calcs when sky Lm deteriorates. In that last interval, Bob's
Lm drops to 5.77, yet he sees 35 LEO, crank thru the formula and ZHR=67.78.
Even considering a large SEM (11.46), I agree with you fully that this is
suspect. Lastly, no one answered my question with regard to Cp. Re-reading
parts of Lovells book from the 50s on Meteor Astronomy, I see he talks about
a Cp but his formulation slightly differs with that from the Jennisken's
paper (though I think the idea is similar). Norm, what are your thoughts
about an observer-dependent perception correction factor?
Joseph