This weekend, Earth will pass through a stream of debris from Comet209P/LINEAR

On Mon, 26 May 2014 04:37:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

During ~15 minutes around the time of "predicted maximum" I saw ONE meteor that came from the general direction of the "radiant." So I would guesstimate the ZHR of this "meteor storm" at about 1/100 to 1/1000 or so of what was hyped. I am being generous here.

Peak observed activity was a ZHR of about 15 over a couple of hours.
That's about 10% of the possible maximum... a bit higher than most
forecasters expected, although much lower than we all hoped for (even
though all the forecasts pointed out that the upper range was very
unlikely).

On Monday, May 26, 2014 10:37:08 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 04:55:17 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Let's forget about the "decent articles" and concentrate on the one from the OP, shall we? :

" If forecasters are correct, the encounter could produce an outburst of bright meteors numbering more than 200 per hour."

In other words, the original article was accurate.

There were nowhere near 200 meteors per hour. "Your estimate" is off by two orders of magnitude, easily.

Can't do much about people who lack the wits to tell good information
from bad, however.

From:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astro...meteor-shower/

"What's got dynamicists excited, however, is that Earth might might pass right through relatively dense streams of debris shed by the comet long ago. This could create a strong burst of "shooting stars" on May 24th."

and

" Some (but not all) dynamicists think there's even an outside chance that the celestial spectacle could briefly become a meteor "storm," with more than 1,000 visible per hour!"

On Mon, 26 May 2014 08:28:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

There were nowhere near 200 meteors per hour. "Your estimate" is off by two orders of magnitude, easily.

The peak was greater than 15 per hour.

Nobody said the rate would be 200 meteors per hour. They said it could
reach 200 meteor per hour. Every single report coming from a credible
source made it very clear that this was a maximum, that it was
unlikely, and that while everyone would like to see an active shower,
what was scientifically interesting was the prediction of the location
of the debris stream, not the density of the stream.

You clearly do not know the meaning of the word "could".

Chris L Peterson:
The peak was greater than 15 per hour.

Over your Colorado mountain top. Your zenith is different from others.

Nobody said the rate would be 200 meteors per hour. They said it could
reach 200 meteor per hour.

Every single report coming from a credible
source made it very clear that this was a maximum, that it was
unlikely, and that while everyone would like to see an active shower,
what was scientifically interesting was the prediction of the location
of the debris stream, not the density of the stream.

You clearly do not know the meaning of the word "could".

I know that human nature is such that "could reach 200 meteors per
hour" is bound to raise expectations. Where did they get 200? Why not
600 or 87? It wasn't just dumb amateurs in Maryland who gave up a
night's sleep for this non-event. According to various reports, the
professionals were also expecting something approaching a spectacular
display.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Tue, 27 May 2014 00:42:46 -0400, Davoud wrote:

I know that human nature is such that "could reach 200 meteors per
hour" is bound to raise expectations. Where did they get 200? Why not
600 or 87?

200 was based on models of probably activity for 209P based on its
estimated size and limited observations of the 2004 and 2009
perihelions, and assumptions about the rate the comet's activity is
declining. The number was far from certain, but certainly not an
arbitrary choice.

It wasn't just dumb amateurs in Maryland who gave up a
night's sleep for this non-event. According to various reports, the
professionals were also expecting something approaching a spectacular
display.

I know quite a few people who went out of their way to observe this
shower. Most were not disappointed, as the majority observed at least
a handful of Camelopardalids, as well as assorted other meteors. I
know of no professionals who were expecting a more spectacular shower,
including those who discovered the possible shower and generated the
predictions. All hoped for an outburst, none that I know (and I know
most of them) expected one. All considered it a small possibility, but
certainly one with a great enough chance to justify an observation
campaign.

On Monday, May 26, 2014 12:21:27 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 08:28:10 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

There were nowhere near 200 meteors per hour. "Your estimate" is off by two orders of magnitude, easily.

The peak was greater than 15 per hour.

No it wasn't, in terms of what could be observed visually.

Nobody said the rate would be 200 meteors per hour. They said it could
reach 200 meteor per hour.

It reached less than two per hour.

Every single report coming from a credible
source made it very clear that this was a maximum, that it was
unlikely, and that while everyone would like to see an active shower,

Many people would have liked to have seen anything.

what was scientifically interesting was the prediction of the location
of the debris stream, not the density of the stream.

Well, whoop-dee-doo!

You clearly do not know the meaning of the word "could".

They had NO idea what it "could" do.

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:44:06 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 00:42:46 -0400, Davoud wrote:

I know that human nature is such that "could reach 200 meteors per
hour" is bound to raise expectations. Where did they get 200? Why not
600 or 87?

200 was based on models of probably activity for 209P based on its
estimated size and limited observations of the 2004 and 2009
perihelions, and assumptions about the rate the comet's activity is
declining. The number was far from certain, but certainly not an
arbitrary choice.

IOW, they had no idea whatsoever.

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:44:06 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 00:42:46 -0400, Davoud wrote:

It wasn't just dumb amateurs in Maryland who gave up a
night's sleep for this non-event. According to various reports, the
professionals were also expecting something approaching a spectacular
display.

snip

All considered it a small possibility, but
certainly one with a great enough chance to justify an observation
campaign.

Oh, so THAT'S what this was all about, an "observation campaign." No one is going to take too much trouble to drive many miles just to count a few meteors, but lead them to expect a meteor STORM......

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:42:46 AM UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
Chris L Peterson:

The peak was greater than 15 per hour.

Over your Colorado mountain top. Your zenith is different from others.

The ZHR is supposed to correct (to a large extent) for variables such as limiting magnitude, percent of sky obscured, altitude of radiant, plus maybe other optional factors to make the results come out the way you want.

You need statistically significant data before calculating the ZHR. That many people under clear skies saw few or no Cam meteors at the predicted peak is significant data.

Then there's this:

http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...eor-shower.htm

On Tue, 27 May 2014 07:11:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

200 was based on models of probably activity for 209P based on its
estimated size and limited observations of the 2004 and 2009
perihelions, and assumptions about the rate the comet's activity is
declining. The number was far from certain, but certainly not an
arbitrary choice.

IOW, they had no idea whatsoever.

Your ignorance of how science works explains much about your other
views.