[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
(meteorobs) Clustering
I'm a tad confused by your references to clumping. I've been piddling around
with the problem of nonrandomness in shower meteors for more than 30 years
now, and so far as I know, research on the problem has failed to discover
any signs of nonrandomness. When you refer to clustering as a natural
process, I assume that you are referring to random clustering, that is, that
a purely random sequence of meteors will still have some higher-density
times and some lower-density times. (After all, if it didn't have such
variations, then the meteors would fall in a regular, even sequence, which
would make them somewhat predictable, which would mean that they are not
random.)
What especially confuses me is your suggestion that different showers have
different degrees of nonrandomness.
Chris
> From: Robert Lunsford <lunro.imo.usa@home.com>
> Organization: ALPOMS, AMS, & IMO
> Reply-To: meteorobs@atmob.org
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:58:19 -0800
> To: meteorobs@atmob.org
> Subject: (meteorobs) Re: Summary
>
> Dear Mr. Warren and All,
>
> You are quite correct in that we should include the location in each and
> every set of data we share with the list. After contributing to this
> list for some 7 years now you would think that I would realize this and
> the fact that not everyone has been around as long as I. We often forget
> the number of newcomers that show up for the Leonids every year and that
> they may not know where everyone is situated. For this I apologize.
>
> As for showers being "lumpy" as you say, let me save you some time. In
> space it is quite natural for random particles to cluster. This is a
> common sight to see during many meteor displays. There will be periods
> of little activity and periods of enhanced activity. This is completely
> normal. The only reason I mentioned clustering during my most recent
> observation is that the Geminids are not noted for this phenomena. They
> are usually quite steady throughout the night. Now the Perseids and
> Leonids are well known for clustering of activity. Perhaps what I
> witnessed is due to the fact that the display was past maximum activity,
> a time which I have rarely had the opportunity to watch. I realize that
> the post maximum Geminids are brighter. Perhaps they are a bit more
> clustered too?
>
> Robert, in answering your last question, I have several spots in the
> Mojave Desert where I watch major meteor activity. It all depends on who
> I am meeting and the expected wind conditions as to where I plan to
> watch. If you have any other questions or comments you would please
> direct them to me at lunro.imo.usa@home.com Let's not fill the list
> with personal questions and discussions as I am sure that there are many
> who don't give a hoot.
>
> Clear Skies!
>
> Robert Lunsford
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Warren wrote:
>>
>> Mr Lunsford,
>>
>> I have been enjoying reading your messages or the meteorobs. I am glad that
>> this site exists. However, sometimes I wish the people writing in woud be
>> more specific as to where they are observing from. then that way, I could
>> plot out on a map the distribution of metoer sightings vs the geographical
>> distribution of the observors. This might help us in learning whether a
>> meteor shower is lumpy or not.
>>
>> What are your opinions on this?
>>
>> Where in the Mojave were you trying to go? Is this a favorite >location for
>> you to go to?
>>
>> Thankyou,
>> Robert Warren
> The archive and Web site for our list is at http://www.meteorobs.org
> If you are interested in complete links on the 2001 LEONIDS, see:
> http://www.meteorobs.org/storms.html
> To stop getting email from the 'meteorobs' list, use the Web form at:
> http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html
>
The archive and Web site for our list is at http://www.meteorobs.org
If you are interested in complete links on the 2001 LEONIDS, see:
http://www.meteorobs.org/storms.html
To stop getting email from the 'meteorobs' list, use the Web form at:
http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html
Follow-Ups:
References: