Re: Radiants, was Re: (meteorobs) A blank meteor reporting form

To: meteorobs@latrade.com
Subject: Re: Radiants, was Re: (meteorobs) A blank meteor reporting form
From: Mark Davis <MeteorObs@Charlestondot net>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 21:36:09 -0500
Reply-To: meteorobs@latrade.com
Sender: owner-meteorobs

-----Original Message-----
> Mark>>It is my understanding that this is how the various size diameters
came
>into
> existence...along with a "best-fit" trade-off in misclassified sporadics
and
> shower members. <<
>
>I don't really think so Mark. The assignment of various large, inaccurate
>radiants to different showers indicates to me that the originators weren't
>thinking about diffuse radiants, but thought these were the actual
diameters
>at the time.

You could be right as I was working from memory...I will need to take a look
at the section I was thinking about.

>rather amusing that IMO had 10 degrees assigned to the Orionids... when it
has
>an actual sharp radiant of 0.84 degrees, and 8 degrees for a supposedly
>diffuse radiant for the capricornids. I can see giving the capricornids a
>slightly wider girth due to zenithal attraction would be greater for it's
>slower meteors than the faster orionids. But apparently this wasn't a
>consideration?


Can you point me to the source of the 0.84 degree diameter? How was this
determined (visual, radar, etc)? I don't remember seeing this....

Mark Davis, MeteorObs@charlestondot net
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, USA
Visual Program Coordinator
North American Meteor Network & American Meteor Society
=======================================================
NAMN:   http://medicine.wustldot edu/~kronkg/namn.html
AMS:    http://www.serve.com/meteors
=======================================================