[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Re: Statistics & Stationary Meteors
George Zay wrote:
> And maybe the quality of data doesn't suffer? Maybe the quality and quantity
> of data increases? You learn when to take those effective naps prior to
> observing. Are you recommending that very active observers should observe
> less so that they won't make your efforts look so bad? :o) As for effecting
> my performance at work...I haven't seemed to notice any? I find the niches
> like most other folks so as not to significantly effect my work performance.
When I read George's reply I had to chuckle. "Where did *that* come
from?" I thought. It was so much off the mark that I'm not taking
umbrance at the personal attack (but thanks Lew for coming to support
me). No dig was intended, in fact it never crossed my mind when I
wrote it.
No what I was on about, and as Lew says, I'm speaking from personal
experience, that chasing after records is not what meteor observing is
about. It's not a race to beat other observers or even yourself. We
all have different circumstances. There are environmental and
physiological differences that are hard to overcome. For me meteor
watching is about enjoying the constantly dynamic heavens, and making
a small contribution to meteor science.
Meteor watching can become addictive for some (note not all) people
and like any addiction can interfere with other parts of our lives.
Not only is there addiction, but guilt. You shouldn't feel guilty if
it's clear but for other reasons you can't observe. There's more of
the latter pressure if you hold a position of responsibility. Each of
us has to judge how we can fit in all the responsibilities of family,
friends, career, education, other pastimes etc. into our ever
increasingly pressured lives. I'm not saying that addiction or guilt
applies to any readers of meteorobs, since I don't know your personal
circumstances. It was just a warning for you as individuals to watch
for the signs.
Re. quality vs. quantity. We should strive to improve the quality of
our observations, such as improving our shower association and
knowledge of the constellations for magnitude estimation and plotting,
reducing dead time. I for one am still learning lots. Meteorobs is a
great place to pick up tips from experienced observers. If the
science is important to you, improved quality can also mean taking
naps and getting an extra hour or two in, or observing fewer nights
but for longer, so your results become more meaningful statistically.
Each to his own. Some people like George manage both, and should be
applauded for it.
George you are fortunate that your work and ability to take naps lets
you observe so much. Those not so fortunate should not feel bad or
inadequate that they can't compete. This is why I'm cautious over
detailed counts and league tables. You can have goals, but make them
*reasonable* ones for your own circumstances, and don't get distressed
if you can't achieve them. My last was 1000 telescopic meteors and
Teff=100. This Teff is much lower than it was during the 1970s, but
then there were long summer vacations from school and university.
If I want to make a dig, I'll try to make it unequivocal. I'm sorely
tempted to have a rant after the remark about "foreign English" when
this week on a Web site I've seen "summarization" meaning summary.
You know who you are. (-:
Malcolm
References: