[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
(meteorobs) New Radiants
In a message dated 97-09-02 03:59:54 EDT, you write:
<<
G> Has anyone checked my new radiant? It may be too late!<<
Sirko>>..dot can't you imagine why nobody has 'checked' your possiple
'radiant'?
<FLAME ON> Well, simply because this was one more of your mostly stupid
postings, which most of us probably ignore anyway. <FLAME OFF>
Sorry for beeing so direct here, but if you do not arrive at the answer
yourself, maybe somebody should give you that hint.<<
I'm about "Hinted" out here....I agree with you Sirko.
Sirko>>You observed 2 (in words: *two*) meteors and claim this might have
been a
new radiant (after you claimed to have found a new comet and to have
witnessed a -15 mag fireball). Just imagine two *arbitrary* meteors. If
they are not exactly parallel, their backward prolongations will intersect
at some point, anyway. That is, every pair of meteors you see will have a
point of intersection somewhere in the sky. But that is not what we call a
radiant! If we forget the length and velocity of meteors for a moment, we
could have n/2*(n-1) 'radiants' from n meteors after your classification.
>>
I was gonna attempt to say something similar here...glad I read all the mail
first before answering as I went along. Anyhow..dot sirko's explanation would
have been far more tactful and concise than mine. From plots alone...I
usually don't perk up about a possible new radiant until I see at least 4 or
5 apparently related meteors intersect out of about 30 meteors recorded. When
I get suspicious of a possible radiant...I usually can find one of my reports
from the same date on a previous year to examine. I then make a log for dates
and radiants to look at in the future...I haven't found anything definite
yet...still looking. So...the odds of finding a new radiant from 2 meteors is
quite slim...dot it's not that easy....usually involves a little effort and lots
of time.
George Zay