[AZ-Observing] Re: Seeing Scale Simulation
- From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stanlep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 14:16:31 -0700
So it is 'THE' Pickering! Based on the context of comments, I got the
impression it might be a different Pickering.
Yes, clear skies don't necessarily mean quality, and my suggestion of a
'super good' category was made only with tongue in cheek. However,
although Arizona may not be noted for its good seeing, there have been
times, I remember once north of Payson and a few times at my
observatory, where the seeing was very good, and where very faint rings
probably would have been able to have been seen. I am certain the third
ring would not have been brighter than the second, though.
I cannot see the fourth ring. I guess this means the 'seeing' in the
room of your monitor is better than mine as determined by the Pickering
scale! True?
Stan
jack.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> No criticism of you intended. Pickering (1858-1938) isn't alive anymore, and
> attacking his scale is a very common thing in print and on the Internet, so
> don't worry about that. Many valid criticisms have been aired such as yours
> and some dismiss it altogether and use different means to rate seeing. I was
> talking about Mr. Damian Peach, who made the simulation, and is very alive
> and well I hope. I think he did a good job for the purposes it was intended,
> and any departure from "theory" in it I don't think is really relevant to
> the demonstration. BTW, when you turn out the room lights, you can actually
> see a fourth ring! It is there! As for clear skies, quantity doesn't mean
> quality.
>
> Jack
>
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
