[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: (meteorobs) A-T's discussion



On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Gary W. Kronk wrote:

> Malcolm's question of "Can't dispersive effects in older streams make the
> Earth pass through only the part of the stream devoid of larger
> meteoroids?" is valid and likely for the A-T's, but opens up some
> interesting new problems.

Indeed.  I was already aware of the dilemma.  How can you have
evolutionary effects, implying age, yet periodicity indicative of a
young stream?  I hope that our observations during the next decade or
so will shed some light on to this matter.

> [lots of good stuff explaining the dilemma]

> Malcolm did admit that he could only poorly cover the A-T watch because of
> bad weather this year, but what he did get was so weak that it does not
> seem to support the possibility that the faint meteors have completely
> spread around the orbit.

I was still able to observe close to the solar longitude that gave
decent rates in 1994, and saw at most a few A-Ts.  As I said in
response to GWG, this doesn't mean that there wasn't activity this
year, just that it was below our detection threshold.  So some
particles could be dispersed around the orbit.  We only need a factor
of 2 or 3 reduction from the `outburst' years to make the activity
undetectable with our current resources.

> I can think of some additional possibilities to
> explain this, but I get the feeling that I could go on and on here, and
> since most of this is conjecture, discussion beyond this point would serve
> no real purpose at this time.

True, but I have noticed a trend (I've succumbed to it myself in
retaliation) where you speculate in a paper or make some throwaway
remark.  If it proves to be the case your paper is cited lots of
times.  If it's wrong, well it was only a throwaway comment without
the latest data from x. (-:  Understanding the physics that try to make
sense of our observations inspires me to monitor this region every
year when moonlight is absent.

> We need further observations--both visual and telescopic. I really do not
> expect much visual activity from this stream next year (although we should
> certainly try), but I think the period of 1998 to 2000 could be interesting
> in that it could confirm or dispel the theory that the stream is periodic.

The autumns/falls of 1998 and 1999 are already going to be exciting
times for meteor watchers (Draconids and Leonids).

> If we assume that faint particles have spread throughout the stream,
> telescopic and especially video observations would be most important during
> the next few years.

I must also find time to study the telescopic archives for evidence of
the A-Ts.

Malcolm

References: