[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Angular velocities
Thanks for your contribution on this one, Pierre: as you say, it is a matter of
personal preference. I think some would argue (me included, after this thread)
that in fact, angular estimates CAN be more precise (and also more accurate?)
than simple 3- or 5-number scales, but whether you agree is really a matter of
how comfortable you feel with angular/duration estimates.
And BTW, to the extent that photographic follow-up actually CAN be done on a
possible minor shower, it is certainly preferrable to visual plots. Of course,
the problem is that many times such follow-up is NOT easily done: as you know,
the average number of hours of exposed film per captured meteor from ANY shower
(or sporadic) is somewhere between 20 and 100 hours... To happen to capture a
meteor from one particular, very *sparse* shower may take years.
However, (and I'm putting in another free plug for Malcolm here ;>), Telescopic
Plotting DOES have the potential to narrowly define these radiants. It has the
precision (unlike naked-eye plotting) to narrow possible radiants to very small
areas. And although it does usually require more "hours per meteor" than visual
plotting to get statistically significant samples from any putative shower, it
is far more efficient than photography. [End plug. :>]
Clear skies!
Lew
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html
Follow-Ups:
References: