[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Observations 23/24
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Mark Davis wrote in reply to Jure:
> That is certainly a possibility. What I would do is label it as a sporadic,
> but in my "Comments" field, I would list it as a possible Perseid. This is
> actually done quite a bit by observers and provides a means to allow
> researchers to go back through reports for confirmation when something new
> turns up.
Jure,
Also record the position of your assumed radiant. Plotting during
late June to mid-July would be even better. Then your data can be
combined with other plots, perhaps over many years, to see if there
really is a radiant, Perseid or otherwise, present.
Rates below about 2 per hour are very difficult, if not impossible to
measure by visual observing because of the sporadic pollution (chance
alignments).
This reminds me of the Uri Geller effect of making watches start
across the airwaves. Out of the vast number which are shaken by
viewers, only a few are reported to start, the ones which would have
started at any time with manual handling. However, the audience is
impressed. Of course, people ignore the 99.99% which don't restart.
So this meteor stood out because it looked like a Perseid, but all the
others which don't are forgotten.
Malcolm
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html
References: