280 POOR 



that part of its orbit at the time the comet passed its node, a 

 collision of the two bodies was almost inevitable ; the satellite 

 passing through the comet. But there is still uncertainty as to 

 the exact moment at which the satellite was in this portion of 

 its orbit. Hence it is impossible to say definitely whether three 

 was or was not a collision. It is therefore possible that the ob- 

 served disruption of the comet was caused by the action of this 

 satellite. But all things considered, it is more probable, I 

 think, that it was caused by the action of Jupiter itself. 



37. Transformation to the Sun as Center. — From the tables 

 of the solar perturbations and from those of the pertubations 

 due to the elliptic figure of Jupiter I find that the total per- 

 turbations for the interval between October 26.5 and March 



24.5 are as follows : 



Perturbations. 



Solar. Figure. 



Att + 0°3l'42'^6 + 0°I4^ 9'''. 3 

 A fl — 2 I 10 .2 -fO 16 54 .3 



M —II 9 34 .5 — o o 45 .8 



Ad' +0.0016832 — 0.0010825 



Ad — 0.0004252 — 0.0013468 



AA' + 0.0400961 + 0.0010143 



Applying these to Hyberbolic Elements I, as given in 32, I 

 have for the hyperbolic elements which represent the motion of 

 the comet about Jupiter on March 24.5, 1886, the following : 



Epoch, 1886, March 24.5 



^ = 284° 7^20'''. I -\- 2.J\".2<^Ov' 



0=256 23 4 .6 — 12 .294V 



i= 63 29 3 .2 — 97 .957V 



e =z 1.0099530 -|- 0.00018261.' 



v= 0.0074203 -|- 0.00000168 V 



N=z — 0.8821586 + 0.00056784 V 



The perturbations, as above, were computed with the ele- 

 ments corresponding to v = o, and rigorously, therefore, the 

 results only apply to the mean hyperbola and not to hyper- 

 bolas corresponding to various values of v. The perturbations, 

 especially those due to the figure of Jupiter, for these hyperbolas, 

 would undoubtedly differ considerably from those derived for 



