[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
(meteorobs) My High rates.
I am aware of the significant difference in my meteor counts vs. my LM,
compared to other observers, particularly Norman's. Even under the most
pristine conditions atop Haleakala or Mauna Kea, I can barely make out
mag 6.9 stars, yet Norman sees mag 7.3+ from sea level sites with ease.
On the other hand, I see "twice" as many meteors as Norman. This seems
to show a serious breakdown in the simple correlation between LM and
meteor rate. It implies that there is another unaccounted-for variable,
besides LM alone, that determines meteor detection rate. I suspect that
it has to do with individual variation in detection ability of faint
static objects vs. faint objects in motion. Several years ago, I
remember taking a comprehensive vision exam (for evaluation prior to a
potential surgical vision corrective procedure - which I never did). The
opthalmologist told me I did particularly well in a test where you
detect short duration faint flashes occuring randomly in your field of
view. He said my peripheral vision particularly, and overall performance
in this test was well above average. On the contrary, I have astigmatism
in both eyes, the left worse than my right. When I observe meteors, I
always use my contacts, which only correct my nearsightedness, so my
vision is only 20/30(R) and 20/50(L). I suspect that the astigmatism
reduces my ability to detect the faint point sources more than my
detection of extended sources or line sources. (For example, I can more
easily see the Gegenschein and Zodiacal Bands whenever I observe from
the mountain tops here.) I do have a pair of glasses, which correct my
astigmatism as well, so I could try using them for observing, as a
comparison. However, I think their reduced FOV and lack of any
peripheral vision correction around the periphery, would be more
detrimental. But, I could see if they help me detect fainter LM.
So, ideally, I believe another test of detection of faint objects in
motion vs. static for each observer, needs to be added to observing
reports, in addition to the standard LM. Of course, this is a relatively
fixed characteristic of each observer, that would need testing
infrequently, and then attached to each report as a personal "motion
acuity factor" or something.. Any thoughts on this?
Mike.
nmcleod@peganet.com wrote:
>
> Monitoring the rates from Mike Linnolt all this year, I note that he is
> seeing fully twice what I would expect in almost every case. That would
> account for his high Eta Aquarid rate from May 6. I would have seen about
> 15 under the same conditions that he saw around 30. His consistency is
> excellent. Hawaii has an advantage over Florida for the Etas of about 20%.
>
> Norman
>
> Norman W. McLeod III
> Staff Advisor
> American Meteor Society
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html
Follow-Ups:
References: