[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Plotting During the Perseids
> At 05:19 PM 8/22/97 +0100, you wrote:
> >Let me be controversial.
I was talking about visual plotting during a major shower, not
telescopic. The latter is worthwhile for lots of reasons... but
that's another topic. If you plotted visually, the data could not be
used for ZHR calculations.
> >In the longer term, wide-field video observations appear to offer a
> >solution. You'd want to have a similar mean meteor magnitude as the
> >visual observer.
>
> This last made me curious: what would be the advantage of having a
> similar "mean meteor magnitude" (meaning limiting magnitude?) between
> the wide-field video and one or more visual observers doing counts?
If the sub-radiants exist, their presence or location may vary with
particle mass. I'd like to see if the Perseid sub-radiants claimed by
some groups of visual observers (including plotters) are real. So we
want to compare like with like. Obviously, the video field of view
mustn't be so large as to compromise the astrometric resolution.
The limiting magnitudes will be different for the same mean magnitude
because of the different perception factors. Sirko will correct me if
this is wrong, but based on telescopic observations, I'd expect a
video system to see a higher fraction of fainter meteors than the
visual observer given the same limiting magnitude. Video has a
narrower field of view and a more-uniform sensitivity across it. To
draw in another thread, the video is the equivalent to Bill
Gates//Marco/myself; we are better at detecting fainter meteors over an
extended field of view.
Is that any clearer, Lew? I'm exhausted, so what looks lucid to me,
may be as clear as mud to you.
Malcolm
Follow-Ups:
References: