[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Meteoroid Size
George wrote:
> Bob<<
> Dr Lukic,
> Thank you for taking the time to so thoroughly explain the relationship
> between size, velocity, and apparent magnitudes of meteors.<<
>
> Yes, well done.
Thanks. It's saved me posting a reply now I have had time to look up
the figures. The picture which sticks in my mind comes from one of
David Hughes's review. That meteoroid model was more of a dust
skeleton (like Matchmakers confectionary) with ices binding them. So
the overall density is low.
> Looks like the horse is on me with this one? I've grew up with being told that
> the "typical meteor is only about the size of a grain of sand", that it pretty
> much got itself chiseled into stone. Looks like I'm gonna have to revise that
> understanding?
Yes it's another example of if you say it often enough it must be true.
People who write general astronomy books seem to just look at earlier
books, propagating old ideas. Look at the list of showers and hourly
rates. Many still include the Andromedids (to bring in Lew's new thread).
Another is "Telescopes and binoculars are useless for meteor observing".
Sounds like there's potential for an article: "Common Fallacies about
Meteors".
Malcolm
References: