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

(meteorobs) One amateur's reaction to the 2000 Ursid results

   I have had two reactions.

   1)Peter Jenniskens' use of radio, video, and spectroscopic data to detect 
and analyze the outburst is a "wake-up call" to visual meteor enthusiasts.  
I have been in the habit of thinking meteor showers mean naked eye 
observation.  But Dr. Jenniskens' recent study points out the limitations of 
purely visual studies.
     If you were like me, you were disappointed when Jenniskens' prediction 
of an outburst did not result in a naked eye extravaganza like the outbursts 
of 1945 and 1986.  Initially, I was incredulous that an "outburst" could 
occur yet be mostly invisible to the naked eye.  However, after some 
thought, I realized that meteor observation has progressed, like other 
branches of astronomy, to the use of non-visual wavelengths and to detectors 
other than the human retina.
     No longer is the naked eye magnitude, visual wavelengths meteor the 
only measure of meteor flux.  Now,I have been aware of a few workers who 
watch telescopic meteors and that there are a few radio meteor recorders out 
on the "periphery" of meteor work.  However, I didn't pay much attention to 
them.  To me, naked eye meteors were where "it was at".  It seems I was in 
denial however!
     The Finnish and Californian radio data in Jenniskens' paper made me 
realize that naked eye observations are only PART of what is important data. 
  Radio data also make me realize that the primacy of "low tech" eyeball and 
lounge chair observation is on the wane.  In light of Dr. Jenniskens' 
outburst declaration, visual counts seem to be insufficient as the arbiter 
of meteor wisdom now.  To do a complete survey of a shower's performance, 
requires technology which most of us have not used and do not possess.  
Radio and CCDs are an important part of the future of meteor studies.  The 
rules of the game are being rewritten by Jenniskens et al.  Actually, they 
are being rewritten by the requirements of comprehensive investigation, 
Jenniskens is only the "messenger".
     Having written all this brings me to my second reaction.

   2) How do we know that 2000's radio rate surpasses the "average"?
Dr. Jenniskens has defined the 2000 outburst by saying that the radio rate 
has greatly exceeded the usual, average, VISUAL rate.  But, is it sufficient 
to say that a radiometeor rate that surpasses a known visual rate 
constitutes an outburst?  In what way are visual rates comparable to radio 
ones?  I believe we can only compare observations in the same wavelengths, 
that is, visual with visual, and radio with radio.  Or, we need an algorithm 
to be able to compare dissimilar wavelengths.  Have there been studies which 
show us how to compare visual with radio rates?  Perhaps one of the 
meteorobs audience can cite one.
   In addition, how do we know that this year's radio rate is truly 
outstanding?  Perhaps 2000's rate only matches that of previous years.  Can 
radio observers of several past Ursid maxima help us out here?  Is there a 
radiometeor baseline which will permit us to categorize this year's rate?  
Such information would help me to accept the legitimacy of this year's 
"outburst".

Richard Taibi
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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