[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Reply to Assmus & McLeod
Thanks, Casper, for the latest refresher course in meteor data analysis
techniques used by IMO. I really enjoy knowing what happens with the
(meager) data I contribute, so postings like yours are always welcome!
As for Norman's post, I still have to agree with him that, whatever pride
meteoricists may properly have in the latest analysis techniques, it still
makes sense whenever possible to archive and report *both* ZHRs and actual
raw data.
After all, prior to 1905, the physicists had every reason to believe that
they could safely throw out much of the observational data relating to
gravity, as it was a "well-understood phenomenon"! Extreme example, but the
point is clear. This is why I appreciate the analyses posted to the list by
Wayne Hally and some of the folks in California! They're examining and
reporting trends in their raw data, which supplements some of the more
refined analysis reported by IMO.
All of it is worthwhile, if only to make interesting reading. :)
Clear skies and many meteors,
Lew
===============================================================================
Karen Simmons & Lew Gramer lewkaren@tiacdot net http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren
===============================================================================