Re: (meteorobs) Meteor Observations Sep 13/14 ZAYGE & Triangulids

Am slowly catching up with the meteorobs, so I hope a few belated
replies are acceptable.

The Aries-Triangulid topic is fascinating and entertaining, not so
much whether or not the shower(s) exist, by how people perceive their
own and other people's data.  I don't have time now to go into the
whys and wherefores.  My main point today is that we should keep an
open mind for as long as possible, and would welcome video
observations over *several* years to nail this one way or the other.

As it hasn't been mentioned or criticised (-:, I'd like to introduce
my telescopic observations into the debate.  Full details are given in
WGN 22:6, p.220--223.  Perhaps I was imagining or affected by some
strange bias, but in 1994 I was fairly confident that I detected a
weak radiant (20% sporadic of 83 meteors in 4.25 Teff) located at
(2h02m,+29) on one night (Sept 12/13, solong 270deg), and perhaps on a
further two (10% sporadic).  If we convert to a rough ZHR equivalent
these rates would all be below the IMO detection threshold for visual
observation.  The apparent velocity suggested a v_infinity very roughly
30 km/s. Further supporting evidence was the tightness of the radiant
and apparent motion.

Now it's always open to suspicion when there are no corrobative
results.  So I would welcome telescopic observations both future and
past, which can confirm or refute my data.

This alleged radiant may or may not be related to supposed radiants of
Gliba, Kronk, and Sleeter.  Remember that meteor activity is different
below the naked-eye limit.  You can detect weaker showers because the
effect of chance alignment is reduced by the improved plotting
accuracy.  There are showers which give respectable displays through
the telescopic, which are unknown to (let alone speculated by) visual
watchers.  By the same token we cannot extrapolate the telescopic
results, if valid, to visual meteors.

I proposed very tentatively an 8-year period.  So little or no activity
this year is in line with that.

George Zay wrote:
> radiate from it. One such spot tonight was 5 meteors appearing to radiate from
> the "kids" in Auriga not too far from Capella.

I agree most of these are random coincidences.  Every once in a while
it's not but you need other independent observers' plots showing the same
concentration from the same night to make a convincing case.

> Sept. 20th. Last night I recorded 8 of these. They also appeared obvious. They
> also have a speed of Slow to Medium. A possibility that some of what were seen
> for "Aries-Triangulids" might have been Piscids?

The Piscids were evident as a separate source telescopically in 1994.
My field of view is only 2.6 degrees so misclassification of Piscids
is not a viable explanation.

> accumulated 13 with the weak ZHR of 3.  In another post from Gliba about his
> observations on the night of Sep 12/13, he mentions that there were other
> observers in the past who have recorded activity from this area. These same
> observers combined probably has declared at one time or another just about any
> position in the sky as having a shower radiant of some kind. They have listed
> thousands of radiant positions I understand.

You're surely not criticizing the BMS Radiant Catalogue, Mr.
Denning or myself? (-:

> for the weak Piscid shower? I bet I can announce a random point in the sky
> that there appears to be a weak meteor shower radiating from it and next year
> there will be someone report seeing activity?

It's been done, and yes observers will report this shower.  For some
bizarre reason its name usually begins with "Upsilon".  Odd that (-:

> significant appears also. Hopefully folks with these video camera's that can
> detect +7 magnitudes will be used in the future?