Ondřejov radar observations of Leonid  shower activity 
 in 2000–2002

Pećina, P.; Pecinová, D.

doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040292

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We confine ourselves here to the activity profile and mass distribution of radar echoes by the echo duration method for the Leonid meteor shower in the year 2003. Similar studies were made by Simek andMcIntosh (1986, 1989), Pecina and Pecinova (2004) using meteor radar (operating at 37.5 MHz) of Ondrejov observatory, a high latitude station. In particular, the Leonid meteor shower activity was studied by using the echo duration method for the years 1965-1967(Simek and Pecina, 2000, for the years 1998 and 1999 (Simek and Pecina, 2001) and also for the years (Pecina and Pecinova, 2004 at Ondrejov.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Radar Observations of Leonid Meteor Shower 2003

Kumar

Reddy

Yellaiah

2006

Astrophys Space Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observations carried out during Leonid meteor shower 2003, by using Indian MST radar (13.46 • N, 79.18 • E; dip 12.5 • N) are used to determine the number density of meteoroids through the cross section of the meteor streams. Cross sections are calculated for a number of classes of echo duration (particle size). They are also used to determine the relative flux of the shower in particle size ranges producing radar meteor echoes having durations <0.4 s, 0.4-1 s and >1 s. Mean activity profiles along the Earth's passage through the stream show a systematic change of the peak activity and the width of the stream depending on the distribution of echo durations across the stream. The patterns of mass distribution index s are presented and discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Radar Observations of Leonid Meteor Shower 2003

Kumar

Reddy

Yellaiah

2006

Astrophys Space Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That the trails are sometimes helical must mean that the grains are irregular enough for rotation or precession to show, and we mention it primarily for the sake of noting that the discovery was made on 1 January 1986 (photoelectrically by J. Westlake) with a pre-discovery by visual methods by W. H. Steavenson on 26 July 1916, conceivably a record for time interval between prediscovery and recognition (Sky & Telescope,110,No. 3) Second, there is structure within individual showers (Pecina & Pecinova 2004 on the Leonids as seen from Ondrejov in 2000-02; Porubc ˇan & Kornos ˇ2005 on the Quadrantids). The latter consists of five streams, only two of which appear to share the orbit of comet 2003 EH1, which struck us as a tad odd until Jenniskens & Lyytinen (2005) pointed out that the comet was also C/1490Y 1 , so that there had been lots of time for both it and its debris to shift orbits.…”

Section: The M'smentioning

confidence: 99%

Astrophysics in 2005

Trimble

Aschwanden

Hansen

2006

PUBL ASTRON SOC PAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. We bring you, as usual, the Sun and Moon and stars, plus some galaxies and a new section on astrobiology. Some highlights are short (the newly identified class of gamma-ray bursts, and the Deep Impact on Comet 9P/Tempel 1), some long (the age of the universe, which will be found to have the Earth at its center), and a few metonymic, for instance the term "down-sizing" to describe the evolution of star formation rates with redshift.

show abstract

“…[1] Rietmeijer (2002), [2] Fulle (1988), [3] Sarmecanic et al (1997), [4] Sarmecanic et al (1998), [5] Fomenkova et al (1999), [6] Spanish Meteor Network data, [7] Visual meteor database of the International Meteor Organization (IMO, 2000), [8] Hajduk (1987) [9] Murray et al, (1999), and [10]Pecina and Pecinová, D. (2004) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning about comets from the study of mass distributions and fluxes of meteoroid streams

Trigo-Rodríguez

Blum

2021

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meteor physics can provide new clues about the size, structure, and density of cometary disintegration products, establishing a bridge between different research fields. From meteor magnitude data we have estimated the mass distribution of meteoroids from different cometary streams by using the relation between the luminosity and the mass obtained by Verniani (1973). These mass distributions are in the range observed for dust particles released from comets 1P/Halley and 81P/Wild 2 as measured from spacecraft. From the derived mass distributions, we have integrated the incoming mass for the most significant meteor showers. By comparing the mass of the collected Interplanetary Dust Particles (IDPs) with that derived for cometary meteoroids a gap of several orders of magnitude is encountered. The largest examples of fluffy particles are clusters of IDPs no larger than 100 µm in size (or 5×10 -7 g in mass) while the largest cometary meteoroids are centimeter-sized objects. Such gaps can be explained by the fragmentation in the interstellar medium or in the atmosphere of the original cometary particles. As an application of the mass distribution computations we describe the significance of the disruption of fragile comets in close approaches to Earth as a more efficient (and probably more frequent) way to deliver volatiles than direct impacts. We finally apply our model to quantify the flux of meteoroids from different meteoroid streams, and to describe the main physical processes contributing to the progressive decay of cometary meteoroids in the interplanetary medium.

show abstract

Ondřejov radar observations of Leonid shower activity in 2000–2002

Cited by 7 publications

References 5 publications

Radar Observations of Leonid Meteor Shower 2003

Radar Observations of Leonid Meteor Shower 2003

Astrophysics in 2005

Learning about comets from the study of mass distributions and fluxes of meteoroid streams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About