One of the pieces of evidence that Sekanina cites is divergence in the
astrometry.

I don't see any evidence in the astrometry for significant
non-gravitational forces. The attached plot takes published astrometry
from early 2023 and our recent astrometry from March through July this
year. The gravity-only fit is very good (mean 0.35 arcsec residuals over
an arc from 2022 December 22 to 2024 July 9). There is no clear
divergence as there has been with other comets that were disintegrating.

Looking at recent images the photocentre is well condensed with no sign
of any elongation tailwards.

This doesn't look like a comet that is fragmenting to me!

Nick.

On 10/07/2024 00:09, buczynski8166@btinternet.com wrote:
 > Nick,
 > Yes after reading the paper( and glossing over the maths) I got the
 > picture he was painting.Do the observations he quotes of Andrew Pearce
 > and Ramon Naves have the requisite resolution to make the detailed
 > asumptions, who am I to argue! Good to see their work being used
 > alongside the volume of astrometry that we have all contributed. We saw
 > the gradual growth of residuals from astrometry in the disintegration of
 > Y4.
 >    Will we see the comet again from the UK, I believe so, but that is
 > only a hope and a gut feeling.
 > Good to read a paper like this.
 > Denis