[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Bob Lunsford's Suggestions/Help & Nov. 19/20 Correction -Marco V.
Dear list,
Good enough for the short lines explanations about LM estimatives along. I
myself, day yes day no, go a little under what the list links explain, but,
also and quite often, I do my own datae on the cluster(s) of star(s) taking
the faintest nearby star from the radiant site. Another aspect is the
dedication for each session time. As much as I spend observing dark skies,
as clear the faintest star(!) seems to me. Of course that it goes a little
bit against the LM procedures. Anyway, no method is still better for me than
that to identify different kind of stars in the Milky Way. Thanks for this
very meaningfull and subject. :)
Regards,
Marco Valois
_________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Linnolt <mlinnolt@alum.mitdot edu>
To: <meteorobs@atmob.org>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Bob Lunsford's Suggestions/Help & Nov. 19/20
Correction
> This is definitely a shortcoming of the current count-area based LM
estimating system suggested by IMO. ...
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
References: