[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Fireballs
In a message dated 97-04-17 01:23:58 EDT, you write:
<<
>>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. <<
How about indications of varying fireball activity during the year?
Now, to address George Zay's comments (note, George, that I took the time to
spell your name properly):
You having trouble spelling my name?
>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. <<
Yes there is. Overall activity is easier to note on a global scale than any
one region. This gives an easier insight into annual variations.
>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?<<
I asked you this question first. But if you insist...in reference to the
original question above, I was relating to the organized nature of FIDAC
news. Just pull out any recent copy of Meteor News and see for yourself how
the fireballs are listed...a few here and there. I've seen a few random
copies of older Meteor News...the fireball reporting looks essentially the
same. I can make heads or tails with the FIDAC News. When a significant
fireball sighting is made, you get the reports of many observers of the same
event. A year or two ago, there was a significant event that occurred in
Japan. In the FIDAC news, there were numerous individual reports
printed...each from a slightly different location. With this kind of
information, a possible strewsfield could be deduced.
>>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. <<
Wouldn't it help to know who some of the witnesses were? Are you just going
to walk out on the street and start interviewing anyone who comes
along...hoping they may have seen the event? Obviously you are talking about
meteorite recovery here. What kind of additional data are you going to find
with the typical fireball reports that are associated with most meteor
showers? I don't know of any meteorites recovered from any known meteor
shower. But it would be interesting to note any changes in the rates of
fireballs in a shower.
>>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<<
As I've said before...why send data to AMS if they are just going to mold
away in cardboard boxes somewhere? At least send it somewhere where it can be
documented and published for reference in an easy to read format.
George Zay