Talk:Kreutz sungrazer

A family tree image

I've had a bash at creating an image showing a 'family tree' of how the Kreutz group's major members have come to exist. I think a nicely-done graphic could really illustrate the article well, but I'm not sure what I've done is very good at all, so thought I would put it here first. Would appreciate comments, and if anyone can design a better-looking diagram that would be great! Worldtraveller 02:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

File:Kreutz Group family tree.gif

My attempt at a Kreutz family tree

On your image there is a confusion between groups I and II. This image is incorrect and should be deleted. Instead of this I inserted an original image by Sekanina (2004). I requested deletion of this image on Wikimedia Commons. — Chesnok (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you copy-paste the image from the Sekanina's article? Ruslik (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I think, this image is a simple chart and ineligible for copyright. — Chesnok (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy-paste=copyvio. The diagram should be independently recreated, not copied. Ruslik (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

✔ Done. — Chesnok (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Delightful!

The images in particular, both of the sungrazer and the family tree above, make my heart sing. +sj + 05:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, very pleased to hear it! In the hope that it might make more hearts sing I've now put the image on the article page. Worldtraveller 14:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aphelion

Does anyone have any info on the aphelion or eccentricity of these comets? Google doesn't seem to know. --Doradus July 6, 2005 04:07 (UTC)

Marsden 1967 (ref 4 in the article) gives 200AU as a typical aphelion and 0.005AU as typical perihelion. $e={\frac {A-P}{A+P}}$ where A and P are aphelion and perihelion distances, so that gives typical eccentricity as 0.99995 by my reckoning. Do you think this info should be in the article? Feel free to add it wherever you think best.

By the way, interesting addition of yours about the energy reaching the surface of a sungrazer at perihelion - was it your own calculation or does it come from somewhere we can add a link or reference for? Worldtraveller 6 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)

It was my own calculation, and I think it was wrong, so let me explain myself, and others can confirm. The angle comes from $sin{\Theta /2}=1/1.3$, giving $\Theta \approx$ 100°. The Sun subtends 0.53° from Earth, which is 192 times smaller, giving an area roughly 36,700 times smaller. I assume the sun's image in the sky is simply magnified by this factor (which isn't exactly right but should be close enough for first-order estimates). The Sun's radiation is 13600 kW/m² at the distance of the earth, so it should be 36,700 times larger on a Sungrazer, giving about 500 MW/m². --Doradus 01:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I was confused by this section... "This comet was found to have passed just 200,000 km (0.0013 AU) above the sun's surface, equivalent to about half the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It thus became the first known sungrazing comet. Its perihelion distance was just 1.3 solar radii. "

Isn't perihelion the point of closest approach to the sun? How can that distance be both half the distance between Earth and Moon, and 1.3 solar radii? I must be reading it wrong... can someone clarify? Wordie 9 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)

The distance between the Earth and Moon is almost 400,000 km. 200,000 km is about half that. Meanwhile, the solar radius is 700,000, so 200,000 is about 0.3 of that. Does that answer your question? --Doradus 01:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Brightness of Sun from sungrazing comet

I've recalculated the numbers in the section describing the brightness of the Sun as seen from a sungrazer - here's my thinking:

1. Earth is about 215 solar radii away from the Sun. The sungrazer in question was 1.3 solar radii away from the centre of the Sun. It was 165 times closer, so the Sun would have appeared 165 times wider than it does to us. It's about 0.5° across from here so over 80° across from there.
2. The angular area of the Sun from the comet would be (165)² times greater than it is from Earth; and the amount of light received would also be (165)² times greater (inverse square law).
3. The solar constant at Earth is 1.37kW/m². This also follows an inverse square law, so would be (165)² times greater at the Sungrazer: 37.3MW/m²

Does that make sense? Worldtraveller 09:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice article

I randomly stumbled on this article while perusing a list of articles with "Great" in the name and arriving here from Great Comet of 1882. Really nice introduction to something I hadn't heard of before. Carcharoth 15:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a descendant of Aristotle's comet

Per the Great Comet of 1882 article as cited there:

Current models do not support the frequent supposition in the prior literature that the famous comet of 372 BC is in fact the ultimate parent of the Sungrazers. The comet of 372 BC is often associated with Aristotle who, along with others from his time, described that comet in his writings. However, Aristotle was only twelve at the time of the comet's appearance and the historian, Callisthenes of Olynthus, who also wrote about it was born ten years after its appearance. Consequently, their reports should not be taken as eye-witness accounts. Further, there is no mention of the comet in Chinese literature of the time. Instead either the comet of February 423 or of February 467 with orbital periods of around 700 years is now considered the likely progenitor of the Sungrazers. The fragments of the Great Comet of 1882 will return in several hundred years time, spread out over perhaps two or three centuries.

I think this article needs to be updated to reflect this modern opinion. The diagram of the family tree would need to be updated.

WilliamKF 02:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I update the article in this respect. Ruslik (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Audio link

The audio link on the pronunciation of Kreutz actually links to the word "sungrazers". Rsduhamel (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kreutz sungrazer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050926144017/http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Comets/kreutz-g.html to http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Comets/kreutz-g.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This 2005 WP:FA promotion was last reviewed in 2008 and has not been maintained to WP:WIAFA standard. Unless these issues can be addressed, the article should be submitted for a Featured article review:

• There is uncited text.
• There is sub-standard prose (sample, Subgroup I also includes comets seen in 1695, 1880 (Great Southern Comet of 1880) and in 1887 (Great Southern Comet of 1887), as well as the vast majority of comets detected by the SOHO mission (see below).
• MOS:CURRENT, recent and recently with no date context.
• Sources dating to the last FAR, with text that has no date context, sample: The number of Subgroup I Kreutz comets discovered is about four times the number of Subgroup II members. This suggests that the 'grandparent' comet split into parent comets of unequal size.[2]
• Poorly formatted citations including bare URLs.
• Items in external links indicating the article is outdated.

It does not appear that the article has been maintained since its 2008 FAR; a top-to-bottom review is needed to maintain FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy? 1.3 radii is 0.65 diameters

From the article on may 13, 2022: "The first comet whose orbit had been found to take it extremely close to the Sun was the Great Comet of 1680. This comet was found to have passed just 200,000 km (0.0013 AU) above the Sun's surface, equivalent to around a seventh of Sun's diameter, or about half the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It thus became the first known sungrazing comet. Its perihelion distance was just 1.3 solar radii." 1.3 radius of a sphere is 0.65 of a diameter. 1/7 of a diameter is 0.14 of a diameter or 0.29 of a radius.Rich (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added a short explanation(there was an explanation already, long ago) that perihelion is calculated from the Sun's center.Rich (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Addition that needs comment

Does anyone have a source for this addition? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed it for lack of source: This serendipitous event happened when the Eclipse Comet of 1882 reached its perihelion just as a total solar eclipse took place. The celestial alignment allowed observers to notice the comet against the darkened backdrop of the eclipse. This rare occurrence provided a unique opportunity for astronomers to identify and study the comet, which otherwise would have remained undetected due to its close proximity to the Sun during that period of the year. I find it plausible, but sans source it can't stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)