Re: (meteorobs) Re: Statistics & Stationary Meteors

George Zay wrote in reply to Lew discussing Bob's point-meteor frequency:
> Perhaps if all the Very Short meteors and Stationary meteors were bright he
> would see more? But meteors appear in a variety of magnitudes. I also find
> meteor movement gets my attention for the appearance of a meteor. Without it,
> I think a lot of meteors would be missed?

I concur.  The angular motion is what makes faint meteors noticeable.
One test would be to compare the mean magnitudes of both samples and
see if they're statistically significant.  My recollection is that most
`point meteors' were +1 or brighter.

I think the perception of short and point meteors varies considerably
from observer to observer.  This is based on my experiences in group

> If you are looking with your center
> of view on a radiant, a lot of shower meteors will often appear very short.
> Combining Very short meteors with relatively dim meteors (such as +4 or +5),
> There may not be enough distance for the meteor to have traveled and be
> noticed as a meteor and not some dim star to get one's attention? This is the
> main reason why I prefer to observe  about 20-30 degrees from a radiant. 

The regulation distance was 40 away in my days a visual observer.  The
reason why I see higher-than-average number of faint meteors is my
fortunate ability to detect faint moving objects across a wide field
of view.  It's so amazing that I often detect satellites just before
they enter the field of view of my telescope.  It's spooky.  My guess
is that's it's some reflection in the Koenig eyepiece stopped down to
a 1.25 inch.  Now only if I could do that for meteors.

> may not be as apt to notice the short dim meteors close to a radiant as easily
> as you would those that would travel a little further along about 30 degrees
> away?

That sounds eminently plausible to me.