[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) ZHRs
Jim Bedient raises some cogent points. Thanks for writing, Jim!
Coincidentally, NAMN includes many members who are not what I'd call "internet illuminati" (certainly not the Robert Wilson kind! :>) Some NAMN members don't even have access to email, and actually forward their observations by mail to Mark, who graciously enters them for submission to the list and IMO. No big deal, but just to set the record straight here. Also, of course, your NAMN sample was pretty skewed in some cases, e.g., the Eta Aquarids. (Most NAMNers are northern observers, and some were probably clouded out.)
I noticed that you didn't include any sample observed rates from AMS data, although you found it pretty easy to include the NAMN data in your message: this points up another issue that some observers have with AMS (having nothing to do with our discussion re: education). That issue is that the huge mass of AMS observer data is not merely "contaminated" with non-standard observing methods (which can be worked around), but is ALSO pretty inaccessible (especially via Internet) to anyone who might make scientific use of it.
I think people understand and are truly sympathetic to the reasons for this rankling inaccessibility, but I was just wondering if this was an area where AMS was planning on taking any steps in the near future?
Last but not least, I do agree that IMO's practice of quoting ONLY ZHRs without mentioning standard deviation, sample size, or any raw rates can lead to some confusion: all the original data is of course available SOMEWHERE, but just publicizing that naked ZHR can certainly lead to confusion sometimes... And BRAVO for asking Norman to quote rates for your next update: outside of the Visual Meteor Database itself (and maybe Bob Lunsford), I can't think of a more magisterial source for actual observing rates.
Clear skies and many meteors,
Lew