(meteorobs) Re: 2004 June Bootids

[Sergey Shanov]

Hello Rob,

My note treated not to contest of merits of the professional astronomers. It
was addressed only to the amateurs of astronomy to show, that the case 2004
June Bootids is more interesting, than farce. For the time Reznikov
precisely enough has given outcomes for cases Leonids (1833, 1866, 1999,
2001-2002), Draconids (1926, 1933, 1946, 1952, 1998, 2012), Andromedids
(1872, 1885), June Bootids (1916). It even that in that time of possibility
of evaluations were poor. Essentially(in essence), our program is similar
Reznikov. And our outcomes (Shanov-Dubrovsky) 2004 June Bootids do not
contradict other models. It is very a shame, but the researches Reznikov,
though were published, were poorly appreciable even in Russia. As outcome, a
little who knew about Draconids 1998. In simulation Reznikov there are no
estimates(estimations) ZHR, however it is visible, when happens meteoric
storm, and when such possibility is not present, or it is poorly probable.

> Even if nothing is seen, this is a useful result to
> modify the variant models.

I would tell on the contrary. If June Bootids will appear, it is necessary
to modify the variant models. Or more safely to parse trails.
Sergey


> Sergey,
> There is no question about the great importance of the Russian studies
> of the Leonid and other shower dust trails.  I hope this has always been
> fully acknowledged and David would never suggest otherwise.  Note however
> that there are precedents to even these these Russian studies and these
must
> also be acknowledged.
>
> Please also acknowledge the novelties that David and I introduced
> in the study of Leonid storms
>
> 1) A geometrical correction to the time of maximum allowing observation
>    and theory to be matched to better than 10 minutes.
>
> 2) Detailed comparison of historical data with theory, showing no
>    false positives or negatives.  (This doesn't mean everything was
>    correct, just that we found no contradictions).
>
> Others have extended dust trail studies to showers much less active than
> the Leonid storms that were the focus of our initial work.  With this, the
> success has been mixed.  But, yes, you are correct in stressing that this

> work must continue.  Even if nothing is seen, this is a useful result to
> modify the variant models.
>
> BTW, I looked at scociological issues around these excellent Russian
> Leonids studies to understand why they were overlooked in the west.  Also
> how predictions and commercial interests were intertwined around the
> recent storms.  Sadly, politics and ego can really interfere with the
> process and dissemination of science.
>
> Cheers, Rob