(meteorobs) Re: History

[Sergey Shanov]

Hello Rob,
Thank Rob for the note. I understood separation of the amateurs and
professionals in following. Presence of different possibilities, for one and
for others. Jeremie, for example, represents scientific institute, where
very big possibilities for evaluations. I do similar evaluations in home
conditions. Therefore, my possibilities slightly restricted (but not
fatally, certainly). If to try to take into account absolutely all effects,
very strongly increases calculate time. However I have shown, that many
effects are not investigated enough. If them to not take into account, the
outcomes of evaluations remain similar! It was brightly shown on an example
2004 JBO, Perseids. However you are right, for example Mikiya only amateur
of astronomy (in an evaluation trails). He is engaged in similar evaluations
for a long time and, therefore, already at a professional level! However his
work, probably, takes away much more time for him, than for Jeremie. And
Jeremie takes into account more effects. Therefore estimates Jeremie will
be, probably, little more reliable for very old trails. In the reasonings
concerning the amateurs and the professionals I implied not a
specialization - different possibilities and preparation. For example, the
initial amateurs of astronomy can make an estimate trails Draconids XV of
century. But it, probably, will be the dummy results, as it is impossible to
define an orbit of this comet in the far past safely enough. Other example,
estimate by the initial amateurs old trails of new comets. It, probably, too
is impossible, if not ngravitation parameters in driving a comet are not
known. I well enough present to myself this problem. But I began to be
engaged in practical simulation recently. And very much experienced, when my
name flashed on different web pages (concerning forthcoming JBO). It is
necessary to designate an edge between the amateurs and professionals, in my
understanding it very important. However it does not mean, that we did the
work not correctly... We carefully studied this problem and have received
very interesting results.
Sergey

> Sergey,
> For your information, I was an amateur when I did the original work with
> David Asher on the Leonid dust trails...
>
> I have seen translations of the work of Reznikov and thought that what
> David and I did was identical.  How does it differ?
>
> Cheers, Rob

> Yes, really, it is necessary to disjoint professional simulation and
simulation of the amateurs of astronomy. Our models and the programs (Mikiya
and Sergey) can predict activity of meteor showers (Leonids, Draconids,
Perseids...). However, than the cometary trail is old, the more
indefiniteness of results, because there are unaccounted and poorly
investigated effects (satellites of Jupiter, A2-effect, Poynting-Robertson,
Yarkovsky...). To be engaged in prediction it is necessary cautiously. Case
2004 June Bootids much more interesting and composite for study (than
Perseids 1 rev.). The Earth has met with old trails, doubly by dispelled
Earth (in 1910 and 1916). Meteoric maximas diffuse. It is difficult at once
for describing by any model. All this is necessary for studying in details
in the future! We (Sergeys) have find this case, but were not sure in the
estimates. And we came to you (Esko, Jeremie for an improvement of results).
We not took into account not perihelion ejections (this innovation was made
absolutely recently). Also took into account 9 planets. Gradually we shall
refine our possibilities, but Even for such composite case for 2004 June
Bootids an exactitude an exactitude of our evaluations very good (It was
confirmed at first Esko, then Jeremie and observations)! We are engaged with
simulation recently, but we shall perfect our possibilities further! In our
brief browse two comets 15P and 45P are retrieved which can generate new
(earlier not observed) meteor showers! The exactitude of evaluations, in
these cases, does not influence on our actual results! These estimates still
not sure, but interesting enough to detail research already now. Evaluations
Mikiya even more precise (he takes into account influence not perihelion
cometary ejections and Moon). However even in case of 2004 June Bootids our
results almost identical! However we, probably, can not precisely enough
evaluate very old cometary trails (for example JBO, ejections XVIII of
century). Esko and Jeremie, probably, will make it much more precisely. The
professional programs take into account much more minor effects. Therefore
it is important to disjoint simulation of the amateurs of astronomy and
professional simulation. However old trails JBO (XVIII of century) are not
investigated even by the professionals! Similar situation with Draconids,
Perseids. All observable cases cannot be predicted. The amateurs of
astronomy can bring a big profit in searching interesting cases! However, it
is necessary really to evaluate the possibilities. We evaluated the
possibilities really and have predicted 2004 JBO good:
http://kaicho.pobox.ne.jp/tenshow/meteor/7p2004/JBO2.htm. However, in case
of meteoric strorm our exactitude of evaluations does not differ almost from
professional (and even is inside possible admissible, probable error)! And
even of meteoric storm are be not always, when the comet is close. For
example, the case 2018 Draconid was investigated by the soviet astronomer
Reznikov. He has not found possibility of meteoric storm, in this case.
However he did not investigate very old trails (XIX of century). To
investigate such trails, it is necessary at first safely to define an orbit
of a comet in the past (in not observable appearances).
Me has surprised, that the datas Mikiya very well have described
observations JBO. Probably, it could be random. Is probable, that is not
random. It should be investigated in the future.
So anybody deceived nobody. It were only emotions... On web page you see our
future project to WGN.
Sergey