Independent identification of meteor showers in EDMOND database

Rudawska, Regina; Matlovič, Pavol; Tóth, Juraj; Kornoš, Leonard

doi:10.1016/j.pss.2015.07.011

Cited by 26 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following the IAU rules, this shower was first reported as part of a paper in WGN, Journal of International Meteor Organization by . Independent meteor shower database searches resulted in confirmation of the existence of this shower, namely Rudawska et al (2015) and Jenniskens et al (2016) At the time of the initial finding, there were 35 meteors associated with this shower resulting in orbital parameters similar to published values for a known comet, namely 2001 W2 Batters. This Halley type comet with an orbital period of 75.9 years, has been well observed and its orbital parameters have been determined with higher precision than many other comets of this type.…”

Section: Iau Meteor Shower #549 Fan -49 Andromedids and Comet 2001 W2mentioning

confidence: 68%

Dynamical modeling validation of parent bodies associated with newly discovered CMN meteor showers

Šegon

Vaubaillon

Gural

et al. 2017

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Results from previous searches for new meteor showers in the combined Croatian Meteor Network and SonotaCo meteor databases suggested possible parent bodies for several newly identified showers. Aims. We aim to perform an analysis to validate the connection between the identified showers and candidate parent bodies. Methods. Simulated particles were ejected from candidate parent bodies, a dynamical modeling was performed and the results were compared to the real meteor shower observations. Results. From the 13 analysed cases, three were found to be connected with comets, four with asteroids which are possibly dormant comets, four were inconclusive or negative, and two need more observational data before any conclusions can be drawn.

show abstract

Section: Iau Meteor Shower #549 Fan -49 Andromedids and Comet 2001 W2mentioning

confidence: 68%

Dynamical modeling validation of parent bodies associated with newly discovered CMN meteor showers

Šegon

Vaubaillon

Gural

et al. 2017

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The numbers of separated and confirmed showers in Sekanina (1976) in the database of 19 698 radio meteors he used or the 296 showers found by Rudawska et al (2015) in the collection of the ED-MOND database from the period 2001 to 2014, or the 230 meteor showers found by Jenniskens et al (2016a) searching the CAMS database of about 110 000 meteoroid orbits. Our numbers are also considerably smaller than the number of showers (707) in the considered IAU MDC list of all showers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To separate the clusters, we have used two methods; the method of indices (MoI; Svoreň et al 2000) and the method suggested and described by Rudawska et al (2015;MoR&, hereinafter). The two methods are briefly described below.…”

Section: Procedures Of the Separation And Confirmation Of A Showermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first group was considered as a reference group. The value of the D-discriminant for orbital similarity suggested by Rudawska et al (2015, hereinafter D R& discriminant) between the weighted mean orbit (WMO) of the reference group and all next groups was calculated. The D R& discriminant was calculated until there was no case with a value equal to or less than 0.15.…”

Section: Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Separation and confirmation of showers

Neslušan

Hajduková

2017

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims. Using IAU MDC photographic, IAU MDC CAMS video, SonotaCo video, and EDMOND video databases, we aim to separate all provable annual meteor showers from each of these databases. We intend to reveal the problems inherent in this procedure and answer the question whether the databases are complete and the methods of separation used are reliable. We aim to evaluate the statistical significance of each separated shower. In this respect, we intend to give a list of reliably separated showers rather than a list of the maximum possible number of showers. Methods. To separate the showers, we simultaneously used two methods. The use of two methods enables us to compare their results, and this can indicate the reliability of the methods. To evaluate the statistical significance, we suggest a new method based on the ideas of the break-point method.Results. We give a compilation of the showers from all four databases using both methods. Using the first (second) method, we separated 107 (133) showers, which are in at least one of the databases used. These relatively low numbers are a consequence of discarding any candidate shower with a poor statistical significance. Most of the separated showers were identified as meteor showers from the IAU MDC list of all showers. Many of them were identified as several of the showers in the list. This proves that many showers have been named multiple times with different names. Conclusions. At present, a prevailing share of existing annual showers can be found in the data and confirmed when we use a combination of results from large databases. However, to gain a complete list of showers, we need more-complete meteor databases than the most extensive databases currently are. We also still need a more sophisticated method to separate showers and evaluate their statistical significance.

show abstract

“…The reason is that anyway meteoroids are ejected with a distribution of velocities and a distribution of heliocentric distances. The identification of a parent body has recently seen a huge development thanks to multi-years surveys (Jenniskens et al, 2011;Rudawska et al, 2015;Colas et al, 2014). The accumulation of tens of thousands of meteoroid orbits allows one to better recognize otherwise undetected showers, and dynamical links are based on orbital similarity.…”

Section: Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

A confidence index for forecasting of meteor showers

Vaubaillon

2017

Planetary and Space Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The forecasting of meteor showers is currently very good at predicting the timing of meteor outbursts, but still needs further work regarding the level of a given shower. Moreover, uncertainties are rarely provided, leaving the end user (scientist, space agency or the public) with no way to evaluate how much the prediction is trustworthy. A confidence index for the forecasting of meteor showers is presented. It allows one to better understand how a specific forecasting has been performed. In particular, it underlines the role of our current knowledge of the parent body, its past orbit and past activity. The role of close encounters with planets for the time period considered is quantified as well. This confidence index is a first step towards better constrained forecasting of future meteor showers.Comment: 16 pages, 2 figure

show abstract

Independent identification of meteor showers in EDMOND database

Cited by 26 publications

References 18 publications

Dynamical modeling validation of parent bodies associated with newly discovered CMN meteor showers

Dynamical modeling validation of parent bodies associated with newly discovered CMN meteor showers

Separation and confirmation of showers

A confidence index for forecasting of meteor showers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About