What's your Darke Number?

[Ags]

http://opticsandalgorithms.blogspot.nl/2017/05/whats-your-darke-number.html

Mine is 6.545.

[Pondus]

22,4  (0.0613*365,24)

[Alien 13]

Mine is 2.19

Alan

[tooth_dr]

66. I guess I did something wrong ?

[ecuador]

Eh, what kind of numbers are those? I got 1.15. The "clear nights" mostly spoils it for me, as I had to enter 0.1 given the fact that this year from our 22 astronomy club meetings only 2 had clear skies...

[Astro Imp]

31.66 but the numbers are as flakey as those in the original equation.

[Ags]

Flaky? On the contrary it's very scientific.... it's got lots of decimal places! 

[Merkhet]

There is a very similar formula for working out the Wigan Number.

I think it works out your chances of spotting intelligent life just after closing time,  in the town centre on a Saturday night.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I dont understand the parameters, so cant comment.

[Swoop1]

On 5/21/2017 at 11:09, Ags said:

Flaky? On the contrary it's very scientific.... it's got lots of decimal places! 

Decimal places DO NOT make it scientific. It is scientific if the person who wrote the equation has an Ology.

[mikeDnight]

I dont sketch on every occasion and sometimes I will make two sketches on one night, but on average I will normally make only one sketch per session. I've just counted 72 sketches in my most recent sketch book, since the 26th Feb 2017, so call it 3 months. 90days ÷ 72 sketches = approx 1 observation every 1.25 days. This tells me there are plenty of opportunities to observe, even if conditions are not all that good. It seems many folk talk themselves out of observing if the moon's on show or there's a cloud in the sky, or its too misty or not dark enough, or .......!

I don't know what my number would be but it would be far more meaningful than the duck egg Drake equation. 

 

 

[SteveNickolls]

30-ish give or take.

Cheers,
Steve

[Geoff_L]

I'm doomed

0.0096 x 365.24 = 3.506304

That said, it'll go up to 11.68768 once I retire and no longer have to get up early for work!

[Gina]

Clear and seeing are the main factors for me.  As I mainly do DSO NB imaging, the moon is not so important but I have another factor to take into account - proportion of the year when the objects I want to image are in view.  There is also the question of number of astronomically dark hours in the night (currently approaching zero!).  Evening social functions would account for less than 1 in 7 but it's amazing how many seem to coincide with a clear night!

[michaelmorris]

21.33 for me - That's the beauty of having an observatory in the back garden, an understanding wife and observing targets suitable for moonlit nights.

[paulastro]

Well, I can honestly say, starting from the first post in this thread, I hadn't a clue what it was on about until Mikes contribution!  (unkind colleagues  might say this is the norm for me  )

I was too stubborn to click on the link in the first post - and all those numbers really put me off.  I hope I haven't missed anything of value?! 

 

[Ags]

The only valuable part of the mental exercise is it gives me more appreciation for the nights I do get to observe.

[Merkhet]

DRAKE NUMBER>

 

The link in the original post takes you to The DRAKE Number, and then The Darke Number.

For anyone interested in the  DRAKE Number,   there is a television program on BBC FOUR that explains the DRAKE Number.

The program will be broadcast on 14th November at 1:30 in the morning.

After it has been broadcast it will be available on the BBC iPlayer.

[oobydooby]

Your Darke Equation is missing one very important element, that being the estimated number of nights with excellent seeing but which are too darn cold to go outside for the duration required for observing.  

[Moonshane]

 

2.7612144 for me. What does it mean? Like the original, absolutely zilch.

[Ags]

How can it mean nothing when the number is so precise? 

[tomato]

0.79 nights in a year. 

Looks about right.

[Tomatobro]

mine is 0.000000000000000000000000006626 but I am as thick as a Plank