[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

(meteorobs) Fireballs



Hello again,

Jurgen Rendtel hit it pretty much on the head when he said that the form
isn't what matters, as long as all appropriate data is included.

He also states fact when he says that fireball reports are essentially
random reports by random witnesses, for the most part.  And I will state
again, that while digests of such reports are interesting enough, there are
no real scientific conclusions to be extracted.  The value of fireball
reports, especially those recieved rapidly via the web and e-mail, would be
in functioning as a trip-wire, triggering more exhaustive investigation of a
significant event (remember that SEAN stood for Short Lived Event ALERT
Network, that was its intent).  Hundreds of such investigations were done,
and analyses published by AMS.  A fine example is the paper on the 8 January
1984 fireball by Per Andersen, Ian Cameron, and David Weinrich, published in
the 1986 AMS Annual Report.

The AMS in years gone by had a network of regional coordinators who took on
such tasks.  Unfortunately this network fell apart, for many reasons,
including aging participants, declining professional interest and support,
and rising costs.  Some of us would like to see it revived, in some form.

Now, to address George Zay's comments (note, George, that I took the time to
spell your name properly):

>Yes multiple reports may cause a little confusion for some particularly if
>not processed in a timely manner...but Andre has been quite up on all the
>reports and have been doing quite a good job.

First, what processing of a random report is done?  Mere transcription is
all that occurs.  I'm sure Andre keeps up with his re-typing, that's great.
By doing a great job, I'm sure that's true, but define for me what value is
added?

NOTE:  This NOT an attack on Andre, this is NOT an attack on IMO, what they
do is fine within its limits.  I do NOT hold out anything I or AMS do today
with fireballs as being 'better' than what IMO or anyone else is doing.    

>To get a global picture...IMO
>is still the best place to send the reports.

As Jurgen Rendtel said, they are random reports of witnessed events.  That's
all you get a picture of, there is no 'global' view. 

>Out of curiosity Jim, in what
>way will AMS Fireball reporting be different from the FIDAC digests that will
>make them of scientific value? I know that the Fireball reporting in FIDAC
>news is a lot better of a job than AMS's fractured fireball reports in Meteor
>News. What kind of information would AMS have that IMO won't to make the
>difference?

Well, FIDAC's been collecting MORE reports, and that's understandable since
AMS hasn't really pursued fireballs for ten years or so.  Are they "better"
reports?  How?

Just to make my feeling absolutely clear, I think random reporting is good
only as a trip-wire, and I don't hold my small effort out as anything more
than that.  True scientific value would come from making the effort after an
initial report to go out and collect enough data to make a complete analysis
of the event.  Let me repeat that for George: True scientific value would
come from making the effort after an initial report to go out and collect
enough data to make a complete analysis of the event.  That's a whole lot of
work, for those of you who've never done it.  I have; it's a lot of fun, but
WORK is the operative word.

As I've said before, I'd like to see the AMS network revived in this
country.  Then we'll be able to pull some interesting science out of the sky.
Jim Bedient
Honolulu, Hawaii