[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Re Observations Sth Tau, Orionids, Pup Velids 2nd Oct 1997
George remarking on Adams Taurids:
>Is this a standard procedure from your local meteor
>organization? I believe Rainer once mentioned
>something to the effect that you should choose one
>or the other.
Yes, this correct. When somebody plots the meteors and notes angular
velocities with them, it should be possible to choose either of the radiant
as the more probable one. Even if the meteor passes one radiant only
slightly closer than the other, or if the velocity estimate matches one of
the radiants slightly better than the other, you get to a decision, EVEN IF
THESE DIFFERENCES ARE SMALLER THAN THE ACCURACY OF PLOT AND SPEED.
I hope I am not misunderstood; the chance of detecting any significant
property of either of the branches is very small. But putting half a meteor
into one radiant and half into the other definitely wipes out the
information about the branches. So if the meteors are carefully plotted and
the shower association is done by constant criteria (after the
observation), we have a chance to see differences between both branches,
when huge numbers of meteors are accumulated; and we have such a chance
when collecting observations globally through IMO.
If meteors are just counted, that is associated with the radiants under the
sky, I'd recommend to report a total Taurid rate rather than the branches.
Even if you look directly at the radiant, you'll see meteors being some
tens of degrees away and difficult to associate as well.
The analysis of Taurid plots might be an interesting job for the future. It
will show the capabilities of meteor plotting -- will the radiants be
distinctly resolved?
Rainer Arlt
---------------------------------
Visual Commission
International Meteor Organization
email: visual@imodot net
Homepage: http://www.imodot net
---------------------------------