[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

(meteorobs) Re: Angular velocities



Malcolm and All,

No one is expecting new observers to rush in and start producing
accurate angular velocity estimates. They are doing good just producing
gut level velocity estimates on the numeric scale. It would seem to me
as one gains experience they would want to refine their methodology of
data collection to provide the most accurate estimates possible. This is
just my opinion but I personally believe that listing a meteor as having
an angular velocity of 6 degrees per second is more accurate and
provides more information than stating that it was a "2" on the numeric
scale. If one is satisfied with their current method of velocity
estimation then by all means continue with it. 

When I see a meteor I instantly replay its path, length, magnitude, and 
duration. Samples of various lengths and magnitudes are pre-drawn on the 
chart to provide a basis for comparison. The meteor is then plotted and 
the data is recorded. This takes all of 30 seconds. The key factor is
the length. If the length is determined accurately then the angular
velocity can be determined after the watch using the radiant distance
and the altitude. This would provide a very accurate result for
determining shower association. This may be too much work for some but I
wish to provide the most accurate data possible so if it involves
jumping through a few extra hoops then so be it. I also wish to make it
clear that the extra work actually involves calculations AFTER the watch
and does not burden me out in the field.

More Later...

Bob 


"Malcolm J. Currie" wrote:

> We really need observers who have used both methods to comment on the
> comparative ease of use and accuracy.  As George indicates, some      > people like the scale and others feel comfortable with a number.  BTW > I use letters A--F (oh what a giveaway!) to discrimate from 1--6      > degrees/secdot it's not that I don't like the degree/s method, it's      > because the telescopic meteors whiz by so fast.  I was able to        > calibrate my speed scale into degrees/s reasonably well, but less     > accurately than a visual observer would be able to do.  In doing      > telescopic analyses combining various observers, calibration is a big > problem. Not all are regular observers, and not all record the speed.
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html

References: