[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 'Double helix' meteors


Hello Phil,

I will be honoured to be included on your page.
Seems it must be pretty unusual then.
As for my part, my 'scientific intuition' definitely tells me it 
was a Leonid. Reasons:
- It had the same colour (or lack thereof)
- Same very high speed
- It came dead from the Leonid radiant point
- I was as bright as the many other bright meteors at
  that very special moment of meteor showers.

In all, it fit precisly (except for its special behaviour) with 
the look and behaviour of the multitude of bright meteors before and
after, and it occured practically at the time of (the early) maximum
of the Leonids that year.
To me it seems in hindsight, that it was the abundance of bright meteors
that made it possible for such a meteor to occur and to be observed.
Being bright and therefore have a big mass would mean it was more likely
to split (and seen being split), a big mass meant it had more chance 
of having stuff with diverse and variable composition, being capable of 
producing diverse reactions - including a 'propulsion effect'. 
The sheer and unprecedented number of bright meteors was possibly a 
necessary prerequisite to bring it about.
It may be that small meteors also display such characteristics, but since
they are much smaller, we have not a 'microscope' (as we have with very 
bright meteors) to see that.
About the chi (an index of friability?) of the Leonids, I have no knowledge,
but I may ask how this has been computed (by way of spectroscopy?) as I 
personally don't know that any material from any meteor showers have been
found (only suspected)?

If you are interested I may try to make a drawing of what I saw, and 
which I still remember quite well.

Sincerely,
Bjørn Sørheim

At 12:26 04.11.99 -0000, you wrote:
>Hi Bjrn,
>
>I'm not so sure this was a Leonid. It could be that the aerodynamic shape of
>the two pieces caused the spiral motion. Leonids are too friable to
>withstand such forces (chi = 0.37). It was probably something more
>substantial. The fact that it appeared to come from the Leonid radiant
>(which is what I assume you mean) may just be coincidence.
>
>Still, I would like to include it on my Anomalous Meteor Page at
>www.ticetboo.demon.co.uk/amp.htm - if that is OK with you?
>
>Regards,
>
>Phil Bagnall
>
>

----------
Archives located at:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html

For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
----------