Untitled

Lyytinen, E.; Flandern, T. van

doi:10.1023/a:1017068618114

Cited by 39 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Activity on Nov. 17 was not observable by us due to radiant position. For Nov. 18, our main maximum at 10h15m UT coincides with both Jenniskens (2001) and Lyytinen et al (2001) predictions very well regarding all three overdense groups. Their subsequent peak was not registered even though it could have been detected.…”

supporting

confidence: 86%

“…We present shower activity curves for both underdense and overdense echoes as well as the mass distribution index s behaviour. To relate our observations to theories of formation of various filaments of the Leonid meteor stream we compare our results with predictions put forward by Asher & McNaught (2000), Jenniskens (2001), Lyytinen et al (2001), McNaught & Asher (2001, 2002 and Vaubaillon (2002). We pay more detailed attention to the appearance of echoes of various duration characteristics (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…We have compared our observations with three author(s). These are: McNaught & Asher (2001), Jenniskens (2001) and Lyytinen et al (2001). Activity on Nov. 17 was not observable by us due to radiant position.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ondřejov radar observations of Leonid shower activity in 2000–2002

Pećina¹,

Pecinová²

2004

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ondřejov radar observations of Leonid shower activity in 2000–2002

Pećina¹,

Pecinová²

2004

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The evolution of meteoroid streams has been simulated by several authors (McNaught & Asher 1999;Brown & Jones 1998;Lyytinen & Van Flandern 2000;Vaubaillon 2002;Vaubaillon & Colas 2002;Wu & Williams 1995). These works deal with meteoroid streams associated with a Halley type comet (Leonids, Perseids) or a short period comet (Draconids).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demonstration of gaps due to Jupiter in meteoroid streams. What happened with the 2003 Pi-Puppids?

Vaubaillon¹,

Colas²

2005

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.We simulated the dynamics of the Pi-Puppid meteoroid stream. The evolution of such a short period stream is dominated by close encounters with Jupiter. The effect is so great that it can cause the stream to split into several parts and form gaps. The difference in period of each part leads to the possibility of a meteor outburst on Earth while the parent body is at aphelion. Past observations are linked to streams ejected in the 19th and 20th century. Sometimes there are overlaps between several streams ejected at different perihelion passages of the parent body, affecting the time of maximum meteor activity. Generally speaking, observations suffer from a lack of coverage. In the 1972 and 2003 cases, only radio observations are available, and they are not in accordance with our predictions. This can be due to the radio detectors' lack of sensivity or to the poor knowledge of the efficiency of this physical process.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless another event of enhanced activity was predicted for 2006 November 19 (e.g. Lyytinen & Van Flandern 2000;. This activity was really observed with the peak occurring within 10 min of the predicted time (Jenniskens et al 2008;Koten et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%