Bernd Wrote: > "Its appearance was absolutely different from any comet I have ever seen - a > perfectly > circular and clean cut disk of dense light, almost planetary in outline with > a faint, > hazy nucleus ... (brightness = Andromeda Nebula)." > > By the next night, it brightened perceptibly and he saw an outer faint > diffuse envelope > some 80,000 kilometers in diameter. The comet must have brightened about a > hundred times > within a very few days before discovery. It was ideally placed for > observation in the > northern sky, not far from the frequently observed Andromeda nebula, and > should have > been discovered earlier unless it had been much fainter. > > What distinguished P/Holmes besides its unique appearance was its rare > variation in brightness. > It faded very little for nearly a month, its coma growing larger all the > time. Then it plummeted > in brightness by perhaps 200 times. By January 15, 1893, it looked like a > faint globular cluster. > On January 16, observers in Europe were astonished to find that the comet had > almost regained > its original naked-eye brilliance. It then faded quickly and was last seen in > 1893 during April.
Interesting - it appears that this comet might be going through a cycle, since the discovery appearance is strikingly similar to how it is now, based on the above account. Hopefully it will remain visible now for a month, and could we also be in for a resurgence of activity a few weeks after that? Based on what I've read here, if there is similar behavior that occurred then and is re-occurring now, wouldn't this rule out a collision, even if by a "sibling"? Obviously no cannibalism occurred, since it is here once again. Would orbital dynamics allow for a "sibling" body to have grazing collisions over such a time frame, allowing both bodies to remain relatively intact? Dave Johnson ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list