Re: (meteorobs) Re: Internet Message

• To: Meteor Observing Mailing List <meteorobs@latrade.com>
• Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Re: Internet Message
• From: Lew Gramer <dedalus>
• Date: Wed, 26 Aug 98 13:41:34 -0400
• In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Aug 98 10:19:19 PDT." <35E44397.1AA97A00@home.com>
• Reply-To: meteorobs@latrade.com
• Sender: owner-meteorobs

Lord, Bob, it sure sounds like you and I are saying the same thing!

Namely:

1) IMO does *not* currently use correction factors for the moon - although 
other analytical methods (such as one reported in WGN last year) do use them. 
Don't ask *me* why these Russian meteoricists do it - ask them.

2) Observing under LMs of worse than (less than) 5.0 will make your data 
unusable for the types of analysis IMO does - and may also bore you. Of course, 
I've watched from skies that were just BARELY LM>=5.0, and thoroughly enjoyed 
the serenity of the experience - using the chance to learn new naked-eye star 
patterns, for instance, or listen for bird calls...

3) Observing under LMs of 5.0 or BETTER (more), irregardless of the presence of 
the moon, means your data *is* usable for IMO's analysis. So go for it!

Clear skies all!
Lew

• (meteorobs) Re: Internet Message
• From: Robert Lunsford <denisel@home.com>

• Prev: Re: (meteorobs) OT: Firemen astronomers
• Next: (meteorobs) Imaging comet tails?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread