(meteorobs) IMO METEOR SUMMARY REPORT: 23/24-Jun-2004, Lew Gramer (GRALE)

[Pierre Martin]

Hi Lew,

I read your report with interest.  It certainly is quite interesting 
for such a difference in our rates (despite similar viewing conditions 
and near the same times).  You're also a highly experienced observer 
and I doubt that there is such error in the datas.

While I was setting up in the deep twilight, a quick glance up and at 
2:15 UT I catch a casual JBO of mag +2 that was distinctly slow and 
radiated from the top of Bootes.  This brought my hopes up that the 
JBOs would continue a steady activity for a second night in a row.  
However, the following 3 hours teff had just one faint JBO seen only 
about a half hour into the session.  Even then, I did not see that 
meteor all that well.  Then definitely nothing else seen from that 
source until the end.  I know also that I was fully awake and alert the 
whole session, facing the south-west sky, and yet I was seeing the many 
meteors coming from other sources.

I just noticed that the IMO circular indicates the JBOs ZHR down to 
only one by the time you started your session on that night.

This brings up maybe a possible explanation... Were you lucky enough to 
witness a highly localized small outburst of the JBOs???

At least Bob Lunsford and Sirko Molau aleady reported seeing 
concentrations of activity on distinct periods.  Could it be that maybe 
the Pons-Winnecke June Bootids possess very small filaments that can 
produce such a highly localized bursts of activity?

- Pierre






On Jun 25, 2004, at 8:49 PM, Lewis J. Gramer wrote:
>
>
> (Also, this log may be of some general interest, as I
> was plotting unusually high rates of the June Bootids,
> for the night AFTER the predicted minor outburst. And
> Pierre Martin, a highly experienced observer, plotted
> throughout this period of time, and under very similar
> conditions, and logged just ONE "JBO" for the entire
> night: Pierre, I'm at a loss to explain this one?! It
> seems outside the range of statistical "noise", yet I
> can think of no factor to correct for the difference.
> I admit up front my plotting skills have been little
> practiced lately - but could plotting errors explain
> away this many misidentified shower members?? I open
> this chestnut up for comment from all our readers...)