[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) ZHRs
At 04:55 PM 2/19/97 -1000, Jim Bedient wrote:
>The NAMN appears, by its nature, to have restricted itself to a
>computer-owning, more or less internet-savvy subset of people. Don't forget
>to come up for air once in a while, though, and be aware of the
>technological changes happening in society around you. Don't imagine that
>the NAMN illuminati are the only ones who tread here.
Hi Jim,
The largest segment of NAMN members are individuals with Internet access,
but not all. Membership in NAMN is open to anyone with an interest in
meteorics, whether they have a computer or not, and btw, is provided free of
charge. Concerning the 'NAMN illuminati' not being the only ones treading
here, I am aware of that. In fact, we are pleased with the results of the
'NAMN illuminati' sponsoring and advertising this list. I am happy to report
we now have subscribers from all over the world and from many different
meteor groups.
>In some cases we disagree:
>Eta Aquarids --
>AMS = 20
>Gary Kronk = 20
>IMO = ZHR 60
>DMS = ZHR 36.7 +/-5
>Highest raw rate from NAMN 1996 records = 5
This is a southern hemisphere shower and since NAMN is a North American
group, our raw rates are expected to be low. I would also suggest that the
disagreement with the IMO's ZHR of 60 is because IMO is using worldwide data
including southern hemisphere data while AMS is not (I can't comment on
Gary's rate of 20 as I have no direct knowledge of how it was computed).
Additionally, in this listing, you don't mention whether the AMS and all of
Kronk's figures are ZHRs or raw rates, but I am guessing they are ZHRs. NAMN
raw rates can't be expected to agree with computed ZHRs of other groups/people.
Clear skies!
Mark Davis
NAMN Coordinator