[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Angular velocities
GeoZay wrote:
> In what way, essentially the same results can't be derived from using speed
> scales and only by angular speed estimates? I know Malcolm and Bob prefer the
> angular speed determination method, but that doesn't mean another scheme
Oh do you? (-: If I returned to visual observing, I'd probably attempt
angular speed; but for telescopic I use a scale.
> lew>>Malcolm's comments suggest to me that a rigorous
> angle/duration estimate is FAR more useful for minor shower analysis than
> a simple 1-5 estimate... <<
>
> Again in what way? I haven't heard any examples yet. He gave me one minor
> disadvantage that doesn't stop Rainer from still being able to analyse and I
> gave a more practical reason where a speed scale is better than
> angle/duration estimates that would reduce possible plotting errors.
I'd like to see a direct comparison of the methods so we can tell
whether or not the scale is better or not. As I said there is still
some debate. If the evidence were unambiguous, the method didn't matter,
then go for the easier or more comfortable method. I think a scale of
five loses some information, which is why I adopted six-step scale for
telescopic.
> I think
> it would be more important to get good data first and worry about minor
> computer program problems later.
It's an analysis problem. The software makes it tractable. If it's
minor, please can I just send off observations to you George to work
out a calibration for me?
> The disadvantage that malcolm presented is
> essentially a software program problem....not any failures with what can or
> cannot be determined with the speed scale method.
Latter clause is true. It's the number and calibration of those steps
that's TBD.
Malcolm
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html
References: