[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
(meteorobs) Kingsmill
Dear Lew Gramer & meteorobs
Thanks for posting an earlier note I sent you re 1886 storm.
Ironically, it's a tad embarrassing now, because given the Bielids, the
Julian Calendar date, the circumstances of the moon, etc, etc, I'm quite
happy to believe that if Kingsmill saw ought, he saw the Bielids, as
very well noted by your group. [I never did get any answer from other
quarters re weather, unfortunately].
Re-stating an earlier comment of mine that Kim Youmans forwarded, I now
note that Kingsmill's letter was published in the Feb 12th 1900 Nature.
Given the Nov 15th 1899 Leonid 'storm', a probable delay to publication
of write-ups thereon, seasonal holidays thereabouts, the probably
subsequent writing of a letter by Kingsmill to Nature, and the delay
before it hits print, I feel Feb 12th 1900 aids the viewpoint that his
knowledge re particulars meteoric could be very new indeed, and not
necessarily stem back to 1886.
That is, his apparent technical awareness re meteor showers could be as
new as 3 months old, and subsequently the Leonids may be the only
storming shower he may have ever heard of: ie no knowledge of Bielids.
So, ironically, Kingsmill's account may not necessarily be the best
thing since sliced bread!
[A little pun there for your UK subscribers].
As for the alpha Monocerotids and mu Pegasids: well 1886 is a year too
late for a pre-discovery of the former, and an inconvenient year for the
latter with respect to a putative parent comet [as, incidentally, is
1883].
---------------
Whilst I'm writing: how are the August Eridanids, as first noted by Gary
Kronk, shaping up? Getting any more frequent? There appear to be three
of these meteors in the Japanese MSSWG video meteor orbit database
[available via IMO website] for Aug 11/12 1996, and I just wondered if
they appeared to be on the increase at all? [Orbits of these 3 meteors
tally very well with Pons-Gambart 1827 II via Drummond D' criterion].
I note that most folk suggest the possible parent comet is Pons-Gambart
1827 II =D/1827 M1, which usually has a period of around 60 years
calculated for it. Nowadays it is supposed to be the same comet as one
of 1110, as shown by Ichiro Hasegawa. Simple arithmetic shows that
another submultiple period fitting these dates would be just short of
180 years, which would give a return around 2006 time. There is nothing
particularly scientific in this, it would just simply be currently
meaningful in that an apparition would be due soon, whereas this is not
necessarily the case for larger submultiples [ie 1827 - 1110 = 717 would
give a return in 2544, which is not of much interest to observers].
It'd also help explain the non-appearance of the comet since 1827.
Although there is the obvious selection effect such that August
Eridanids may be noticed more, post discovery, because some people may
be actively looking for them now, it would be interesting to know if
anyone feels that they are on the increase, in light of the above. Even
a 60 year period as per calculation by the experts would obviously lead
to a possible return in the early twenty hundred oughts.
Cheers
John
John Greaves
UK
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html