Re: (meteorobs) AMO activity

• To: Meteor Observing Mailing List <meteorobs@jovian.com>
• Subject: Re: (meteorobs) AMO activity
• From: Lew Gramer <dedalus@latrade.com>
• Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 19:58:32 -0500
• In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Dec 1999 14:21:26 -1000." <Pine.GSO.4.10.9912021404020.774-100000@pohaku.jach.hawaiidot edu>
• Reply-To: meteorobs@jovian.com
• Sender: owner-meteorobs@jovian.com

Malcolm Currie writes:
>The fact that some reported activity and others didn't is indicative of
>statistical fluctuations of activity barely detectable by visual means.

A fair statement, Malcolm: and actually, thinking about the IMO formula
for correcting rates versus limiting magnitude, I expect the ZHR for the
AMOs I saw even in my more active hours was probably 3 or less! Using
some other formulae, it might not be so low...

Still, what struck me was consistency of rates across the two nights.

Anyway, unless significantly more data (especially video or radar) does
turn up, I guess I am stuck calling this mere "scatter" after all. :)

Clear skies,
Lew


To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html

• From:

• Prev: (meteorobs) ARCHIVE TEST #4 - ignore
• Next: (meteorobs) Nova Aquila Report
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread