Re: (meteorobs) Leonids Peak in NJ

To: <meteorobs@latradedot com>
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Leonids Peak in NJ
From: wayne.t.hally@bangate1.tekdot com
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 96 6:08:42 EST
Reply-To: meteorobs@latradedot com
Sender: owner-meteorobs
By the way, Lew, I forgot exactly where you were over the weekend. Got a 
nearby town I can find on my atlas?..just for curiosity. Your LM was 
probably better than mine...by the end of night, I was hard pressed to see 
a +5 mag meteor..I had to be staring right at it. Besides, I wuz gettin' 
dizzy from spinnin' my head to catch all the Bright Leonids. What a show!
	The point you raised about that few hundred miles making such a 
difference is very important. One observer at one location is just one data 
point. That goes for fine structure, and well as those marginal 1-2 per 
hour minor showers that lie at the limit of detectability...precisely the 
reason for the standard observing methods we use. That way the data can be 
combined into large enough sets for statistically signifigant conclusions 
to be drawn. That is really why we depend on each other for our own data to 
be useful!
	In examining reports it does seem that this apparition contained 
higher than normal numbers of bright meteors, and peak rates 3-5 times 
normal. That's just my quick impression. It should be interesting to see 
how the Geminids, with a different set of charachteristics appear.

Wayne
-------------
Original Text
From: Lew Gramer <dedalus@latradedot com>, on 11/21/96 12:00 PM:
To: "Meteor Observing Mailing List" <meteorobs@latradedot com>

Interesting the differences in our different peak and lull times, Wayne... 
Seems 
like the LEOs must have some mighty fine structural variations for a 
distance of 
a few hundred miles to make such a difference! I guess limiting magnitude 
and 
perception might also be coming into play, as I definitely saw more faint 
LEOs 
than you did. Are you still running your comparison analysis on each 
report?

By the way, thanks to Franklin Miller for clearing up a question I ALSO had 
about pre-perihelion near-comet rates! Only thing is that this information 
makes 
MUCH more complex the picture I had in my mind (mostly from reading the IMO 
publications) of how stream orbits deform: Now instead of just imagining 
particles "settling down" from the cometary orbit into a less eccentric 
elliptical orbit, I find myself having to imagine a hyperbola or eccentric 
ellipse which is deformed NON-continuously into a lower ellipse... x^*

Can ANYBODY really visualize how this process looks?! :(

Lew
e