[AZ-Observing] Re: Preliminary Results from Mt. Lemmon
- From: Stan Gorodenski <stanlep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:32:50 -0700
Well...It's nice to know that my counts (that I posted in Az-Observing)
are in the ballpark for one person counts, and it also seems to point to
a suggestion that one does not necessarily need a completely clear sky
for a one person count. If part of the sky gets clouded, like what
happened to me between 3:00-4:00, and since one person can only observe
'part' of the sky, then changing to another part of the sky for counting
could still give a good hourly rate estimate, e.g., my 398 in one hour,
which, although I cannot claim it is a 'good' estimate, it is still in
the ballpark of the 350/hr average. I think where completely clear
skies are a consideration is if one wants to experience the whole sky
grandeur of rates like these.
I am glad to see you clarify these 2400/hr rates. I myself had been
thinking that listing them as 'hourly' rates are very misleading, and
maybe some other measure should be used for these kinds of 'burst'
rates. The shorter the burst time period, the more misleading they
become at to the overall strength of a meteor shower when expressed as
an 'hourly' rate.
With respect to: "Is it just my jaded curmudgeonly outlook on the world
that made me me think this event was "pretty good" but a long way from
being a spectacle?". I myself would have to agree it was 'pretty good',
but then if I was under completely dark and clear skies, maybe I would
feel differently.
Stan
Brian Skiff wrote:
>
> Note that this appears to be an "all-sky" count for seven observers.
> Thus the one-person rate peaked at something like 350/hour, and since the
> peak shown ("only" 2400/hr) lasted only 10 minutes, averages over longer
> spans would reduce the number further. The 9:55 UT peak certainly didn't
> happen, and my impression was that activity keep rolling pretty steadily
> at least until 5am (12h UT) at 600/hr (10 per minute---no problem).
> I also note on the AMS plot that the Mt Lemmon group also show a
> "sproadic" rate with a sharp peak at ~100/hour, i.e. as good as the best
> Geminid or Perseid displays. Somebody please tell us that's nonsense.
> Is it just my jaded curmudgeonly outlook on the world that made me
> me think this event was "pretty good" but a long way from being a spectacle?
>
> \Brian
> ---
> This message is from the AZ-Observing mailing list. If you wish to be
> removed from this list, send E-mail to: AZ-Observing-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> with the subject: unsubscribe.
>
> The list's archive is at: //www.freelists.org/archives/az-observing
>
> This is a discussion list. Please send personal inquiries directly to
> the message author. In other words, do not use "reply" for personal
> messages. Thanks.
---
This message is from the AZ-Observing mailing list. If you wish to be
removed from this list, send E-mail to: AZ-Observing-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
with the subject: unsubscribe.
The list's archive is at: //www.freelists.org/archives/az-observing
This is a discussion list. Please send personal inquiries directly to
the message author. In other words, do not use "reply" for personal
messages. Thanks.
Other related posts:
