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

Re: (meteorobs) A-T 1996 ZAYGE ...long article



On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 GeoZay@aoldot com wrote:

> Well, as for the Xi Draconids...I'm nowhere near 100% confidence that this is
> a real shower either...too early too tell...still needs some more plotting
> from years to come. I don't plot with an effort to match someone else's
> efforts. As for being "off" with my "radiant" on the the Xi Draconid area and
> trying to compare it with my criteria for an 
> A-T radiant..dot it's quite moot really. It's not that far off.  The same
> difference in distance between mine and Bob's for the Xi Draconid area would
> have qualified it as being within one radiant on the A-T analysis.  In other
> words I was quite lenient in allowing areas to be considered as an A-T
> radiant. 

The 1993 observations of the A-Ts had discordant radiants according to
Gary's article in WGN 21:6, p.262.  These were

    Kronk   35  +30
    Sleeter 30  +30
    Gliba   28  +19

Gary combined these to get 30, +28, i.e. not giving much weight to
George's declination and his own right ascension.  What was the
justification for this, apart from the fact that they look discrepant?
In which direction was George looking?  I just thought from this
article that the low declination was due to observational error and
that you were all observing the same single radiant (also because my
telescopic observations show no indication of a southern component
near gamma-Arietis).  Hence until this week I've referred to the
shower as the alpha-Triangulids rather than Arietids-Triangulids, and
was a little surprised to read about multiple radiants recently in
this discussion group.  What's the evidence for a southern component?

In George's article that started this thread, reference [1] is to
"Sky & Telescope" 1993 September.  I couldn't find the reference.  The
one I did locate was 1994 October, p.108.  Was the citation incorrect?

Malcolm

References: