[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Re Observations Sth Tau, Orionids, Pup Velids 2nd Oct 1997
George wrote:
Is this a standard procedure from your local meteor organization? I believe
Rainer once mentioned something to the effect that you should choose one or
the other. That is make it your best guess. Anyhow, this is what I do. The
Taurids are murder for me to determine which radiant any particular meteor
belongs to. Quite often the meteor and the two radiants line up and it's a
real guess. Sometimes it becomes a matter of which shower is the most active
on any particular date that I choose when they line up. Like now the S.
Taurids are most active. The questionable alignments will favor the S.
Taurids. Later in the month I will favor N. Taurids if need be. The bottom
line is, I don't split up shower membership. For meteors that are close to
the radiants, it becomes a little easier for me to decide. I take into
consideration how long the meteor path is when it passes thru two radiants.
George Zay
>>>>>>>>>>
This is not a criticism, George, just an opinion:
From the researcher's point of view, the above method would introduce a
systematic bias in the data, by having the observer interpret shower
membership based upon a preconceived notion of what component is most
active that the time.
If you believe that the Southern Taurids are more active than the Northern
Taurids on the night that you observe, and you interpret questionable
alignments as Southern Taurids because of this knowledge, then - presto -
your data will show the Southern Taurids to be the most active: thus
proving your preconceived notion.
Unfortunately, this is not very accurate or objective, and reduces the
scientific value of the data. I think that it would be more objective to
call such questionalble alignments simply "Taurids" and let it go at that.
I would propose that visual observers exercise extreme care in not letting
their own preconceived notions about radiant locations and activity levels
influence their actual data collection (Upsilon Pegasids, anyone?). The
data should objectively point to the actual meteor activity, rather than
letting "knowledge" of activity influence the data.
I know from personal experience that this is much easier said than done. I
remember one year in particular when I was just learning to plot that my
Delta Aquarid plots split very nicely into the separate components, with
small radiant areas -- TOO nicely. It was a very pretty plotting chart,
but i had obviously let my foreknowledge of what I expected to see that
night influence my recording of what I actually did see. This is a very
easy trap to fall into.
Thanks for listening,
Jim
James Richardson
Graceville, Florida
richardson@digitalexp.com
Operations Manager / Radiometeor Project Coordinator
American Meteor Society (AMS)
http://www.serve.com/meteors/
Follow-Ups:
References: