[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Angular velocities
Lew,
I agree with all you said below. I was referring to photography as
one of the possible methods to get very accurate radiants. It may be
quite useful especially for higher (or brighter) activity but as you
say low activity can take a very long time. For those possible weak
(or faint) showers, other methods like video or even better ;>
telescopic plotting are indeed very useful.
Pierre
Lew Gramer wrote:
>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. :>]
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html
References: