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

Re: (meteorobs) Bob Lunsford's Suggestions/Help & Nov. 19/20 Correction -Marco V.

Hi all,
    This topic jogged an old memory in me.  Back in the seventies when I 
first got started serious meteor observing, one of the data points I 
recorded on each meteor seen was a column called DCV.  This stood for 
"Distance from Central Vision".  Haven't seen this term used or recorded in 
a long time.   It was a measure of how far away you saw a meteor from the 
point on the sky where you were actually looking.  Each observer had an 
average (specified in degrees) "DCV value" which was a measure of that 
person's ability to spot meteors over a large (or small) area of the sky.   
We faithfully recorded this right along with LM (we called it ZS - zenithal 
star) in those days.  Doing this soon showed that some observers have much 
more sensitive peripheral vision than others do.  This may be an even more 
important value that LM and is strictly based on observer sensitivty and not 
on sky condition.  Even under the same sky and sitting side by side, 
observers will get consistently different results .  And, one established, 
the results were very consistent from one individual to another as to 
perception capability over time.  Just thought I'd throw this out for 
discussion.  I know Norman (and maybe Bob L.) will remember this.  Paul in 
FL


>From: "Marco Valois" <newseven@hotlink.com.br>
>Reply-To: meteorobs@atmob.org
>To: <meteorobs@atmob.org>
>Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Bob Lunsford's Suggestions/Help & Nov. 19/20 
>Correction -Marco V.
>Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:52:11 -0200
>
>
>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

_________________________________________________________________
Need a shot of Hank Williams or Patsy Cline?  The classic country stars are 
always singing on MSN Radio Plus.  Try one month free!  
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio

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: