Re: (meteorobs) Opik

To: Meteor Observing Mailing List <meteorobs@atmob.org>
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Opik
From: Rob McNaught <rmn@aaocbn.aaodot gov.AU>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:52:04 +1000 (EST)
Delivered-To: meteorobs-mhonarc@atmob.org
Delivered-To: meteorobs@atmob.org
In-Reply-To: <200204151735.AA17784@trilliandot dev.latrade.com>
Reply-To: meteorobs@atmob.org
Sender: owner-meteorobs@atmob.org

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Lew Gramer wrote:

> >I think it's even worse: the Opik method breaks down at rates above maybe 1,000
> >per hour (with really good timing), but then ANY human counting method breaks
> >down around 4,000 per hour
> 
> I was curious to hear more about this last point, Chris: are you aware of any
> perception studies which tend to point to this as an upper limit for "counting"?
> 
> Also, it may or may not be signficant that the observing conditions for you and
> your fellow Leonid MAC team members were very, very different from those that
> most observers face in the field - perhaps better, or perhaps more distracting?

I think there was a general agreement in the 1999 Leonids, that observers who
had an average peak _observed_ rate of around 1/sec (60/min, 3,600/hr) as I
had, felt counting was still reliable, but only just so.  As the rates rose,
I really felt I was about to have trouble counting, when the rates started to
fall after maximum. My maximum count was 70/minute.  I'd tend to agree that
for most observers counting would become unreliable at an observed rate of
over 4,000/hr.  Clearly some observers will be more able to deal with high
rates than others.
Cheers, Rob

The archive and Web site for our list is at http://www.meteorobs.org
To stop getting all email from the 'meteorobs' lists, use our Webform:
http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html

Follow-Ups:

Re: (meteorobs) Opik

From: "ccmlt" <ccmlt@wanadoo.fr>

References:

Re: (meteorobs) Opik

From: Lew Gramer <dedalus@latrade.com>