Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: the oort cloud @xcite remains the most mysterious part of our solar system , primarily because it can not be directly observed . our only observational clues to the size , shape , mass and composition of the oort cloud come from observations of long - period comets . the demographics of observed long - period comets have been the starting point of almost all attempts to model the oort cloud ( eg . * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ) .    until the last ten or so years , the vast majority of comets were discovered by systematic eyeball searches , using small telescopes @xcite . these surveys have been highly effective at identifying large samples of comets , and in deriving their orbital parameters . they do , however , have three major drawbacks :    * unknown selection function : it is very unclear how often different parts of the sky are surveyed , and to what depth . surveys are clearly more sensitive to comets with bright absolute magnitudes and perihelia close to the earth , but the strength of this effect is very hard to estimate @xcite . * limited range of comets observed : eyeball surveys find few comets fainter than an absolute magnitude of 10 and with perihelia beyond 3au . * poorly defined photometry : these surveys quote the `` total brightness '' of a comet . total cometary magnitudes are notoriously unreliable . they are typically measured by defocussing a standard star to the same apparent size as the comet , but this apparent size is heavily dependent on observing conditions and observational set - up .    despite these drawbacks , many attempts have been made to derive the basic parameters of the long period comet population from eyeball - selected historic samples . the most heroic and influential attempt was that of @xcite . everhart carried out an exhaustive analysis of the historical circumstances in which comets were discovered , over a 127 year period . he developed a model for the sensitivity of the human eye , and used it to calculate the period over which a given historical comet could have been seen . this was then used to estimate the completeness of the comet sample : if a given type of comet was typically seen early in its visibility window , surveys should be complete for this type of comet . if the mean time to find a given type of comet is , however , comparable to the length of the estimated visibility window , the completeness is probably low . using this method , everhart estimated that for every comet seen , another 31 were missed . a more modest and recent attempt was that of @xcite . he restricted himself to the brightest and nearest comets , for which he claimed ( on the basis of discovery trends ) historical surveys were highly complete . the statistics of these comets were simply extrapolated to larger perihelia and fainter absolute magnitudes , with no correction for observational incompleteness . as one would expect , the flux of long - period comets through the inner solar system estimated by @xcite is much lower that that estimated by @xcite .    despite these attempts , several basic questions about the demographics of long - period comets remain unresolved . one question concerns small comets @xcite : those with nuclear radii less than @xmath0 km ( absolute magnitudes @xmath1 ) . extrapolating the everhart data implies that there should be a large population of such comets . @xcite was unable to tell whether his model predicted a large population of such comets or not . a second question concerns the number of comets per unit perihelion . @xcite found that this number rises from the sun out to 1au , but was unable to determine whether it keeps rising at larger perihelia . @xcite found no significant rise , but had large enough error bars to bracket both of everhart s possibilities . the observational situation has changed radically in the last few years . the advent of large format sensitive ccds has allowed automated surveys to supplant eyeball searches as the main mechanism for finding new long - period comets . most long period comets are now being found as by - products of various automated searches for near - earth objects , such as the lincoln near - earth asteroid research ( linear ) project @xcite , the catalina sky survey , loneos and neat @xcite . many are also found by space - based coronagraphs as they approach very close to the sun @xcite , though these are mostly fragments of recently disintegrated larger comets @xcite .    in this paper , i attempt to deduce the statistical properties of the long - period comet population from one of these ccd surveys : the linear survey . this has a far better defined selection criterion than any historical eyeball survey , and extends to much larger perihelia and fainter absolute magnitudes . it thus allows both an independent check and an extension of previous estimates of the long - period comet population .    near earth asteroid ( neo ) surveys are not optimized for comet detection . while they find many long - period comets , they do not publish their raw data , nor all the details one would like of their exact detection algorithms and sky coverage . in particular , they do not publish on - going photometry of the comets they discover . nonetheless , enough information is available to make a first pass at estimating the true population of long - period comets from their data . there have been previous attempts to use these surveys to detemine the true populations of neos ( eg . * ? ? ? * ) and dormant comets @xcite , but this paper is the first attempt of which i am aware to do this for active comets .    in the next few years , the situation should further improve , with the advent of a new generation of wide - field survey telescopes , such as skymapper , pan - starrs @xcite and gaia @xcite . these surveys will predominantly find comets much fainter and more distant than historical surveys . the analysis in this paper allows a first estimate of just how many long - period comets these surveys can find , and how best to identify them . i start off by defining a sample of comets drawn from the linear sample , and examining its properties , which are very different from those of eyeball samples (   [ sample ] ) . a model of the long - period comet population is then generated (   [ model ] ) based on and extrapolating the historical eyeball - selected surveys . a monte - carlo simulation of this comet population as it would be observed by linear is then developed (   [ montecarlo ] ) . the results are compared to the observed sample in   [ compmodels ] : i find that the hughes model is quite a good fit to the data , but that the everhart model is not . i derive my own best - fit model of long - period comet demographics . the consequences of this new model are many : i examine them in   [ discussion ] before drawing conclusions in   [ conc ] . of the several near - earth asteroid surveys now under - way , the lincoln near - earth asteroid research ( linear ) project @xcite was most suitable for constraining the long - period comet population . this is because :    * they discover more comets than any other single survey . * they publish sky charts on their web page showing the area of the sky observed during each lunation , with the point - source magnitude limit reached at each location . * their sky coverage and magnitude limit is relatively simple and uniform across this period . the comet sample was defined as follows :    1 . the comet has an orbital period longer than 200 years . 2 . the comet reached perihelion between 2000 jan 1 and 2002 dec 31 . the comet was either discovered by linear between these dates , or could have been discovered by linear between these dates had it not already been discovered by someone else , or discovered prior to 2000 jan 1 . the 2000 - 2002 date range was chosen because comet details ( from the catalog of cometary orbits , * ? ? ? * ) and sky - maps ( including limiting magnitudes ) are available . @xcite listed 25 comets as having been discovered or co - discovered by linear which met our criteria . i needed , however , to add two additional sub - samples :    * comets discovered prior to 2000 , but which reach perihelion in the period 2000 - 2002 , and which could have been first discovered by linear within this period , had they not already been found . * comets discovered in 2000 - 2002 inclusive by other surveys , but which would subsequently have been seen by linear during this period . potential members of the two additional sub - samples were selected from @xcite . each candidate was checked for its detectability by linear , using the ephemerides and predicted magnitudes generated by the minor planet center . the predicted positions and brightnesses were compared to the maps of linear sky coverage . these maps show only the integrated coverage per lunation , not the night - by - night or hour - by - hour coverage , but most of these comets move slowly enough that this should nt much matter . this process added another 27 comets to our sample . 8 had been detected by linear during 1999 , but reached perihelion in 2000 or 2001 . most of the remainder were first identified by other near - earth asteroid surveys , particularly the catalina sky survey , loneos and neat .    for every comet in our final sample , the original discovery details ( as distributed by the central bureau of astronomical telegrams ) were checked . from these , the discovery date , discovery magnitude @xmath2 and discovery circumstances were noted . the discovery magnitudes are total magnitudes ( m1 ) . it is not clear how reliable and homogeneous these magnitudes are , but no better source of ccd photometry is available . they are based on ccd observations by professional astronomers of typically barely resolved objects , and so should be good to @xmath3mag . absolute magnitudes @xmath4 were computed from these discovery magnitudes @xmath2 . the standard equation was used : @xmath5 ( eg . * ? ? ? * ) , where @xmath2 is the observed total magnitude at discovery and @xmath6 a power - law parameterization of the dependence on heliocentric distance . as is conventional for solar system work , the absolute magnitude is defined as the observed magnitude if the object were at a distance of 1 au from both the earth and the sun . following @xcite , the dynamically new and old comets were treated differently ( the new ones are much brighter at large heliocentric radii , at least on their way in ) . a comet is classed as dynamically new if its original semi - major axis @xmath7 is @xmath8 10,000 au , old if @xmath9 10,000 au , and undetermined if the orbit class in @xcite is ii or worse . for new comets , @xmath10 was used if they are seen pre - perihelion and @xmath11 if seen afterward . for old comets , the values are 5.0 and 3.5 respectively . the canonical value of @xmath12 is used for comets of undetermined orbit type . this is uncertain both because real comets show a dispersion in @xmath6 , and because the @xmath6 values in @xcite are based on observations at smaller heliocentric distances . it is , however , self - consistent with the analysis used in our monte - carlo simulations . our sample is listed in table  [ sampletab ] . lcccc    c/1999 f1 & 5.7869 & 7.82 & 0.000038 & 1a + c/1999 j2 & 7.1098 & 6.39 & 0.000019 & 1a + c/1999 k5 & 3.2558 & 9.75 & 0.000024 & 1a + c/1999 k8 & 4.2005 & 6.33 & 0.000681 & 1a + c/1999 l3 & 1.9889 & 10.21 & 0.013741 & 1b + c/1999 n4 & 5.5047 & 9.99 & 0.000068 & 1a + c/1999 s4 & 0.7651 & 7.84 & 0.000720 & ii + c/1999 t1 & 1.1717 & 4.36 & 0.000173 & ii + c/1999 t2 & 3.0374 & 6.05 & 0.000596 & 1a + c/1999 t3 & 5.3657 & 5.12 & 0.000231 & 1b + c/1999 u4 & 4.9153 & 7.60 & 0.000037 & 1a + c/1999 y1 & 3.0912 & 9.80 & 0.000044 & 1a + c/2000 a1 & 9.7431 & 8.13 & 0.000044 & 1a + c/2000 ct54 & 3.1561 & 10.71 & 0.000051 & 1a + c/2000 h1 & 3.6366 & 10.29 & & + c/2000 j1 & 2.4371 & 12.62 & 0.001406 & 1a + c/2000 o1 & 5.9218 & 7.03 & 0.000037 & 1a + c/2000 of8 & 2.1731 & 14.07 & 0.000048 & 1b + c/2000 sv74 & 3.5416 & 9.40 & 0.000090 & 1a + c/2000 u5 & 3.4852 & 9.88 & 0.000358 & 1a + c/2000 w1 & 0.3212 & 10.44 & & + c/2000 wm1 & 0.5553 & 6.81 & -0.000459 & ii + c/2000 y1 & 7.9747 & 9.54 & 0.000063 & 1a + c/2000 y2 & 2.7687 & 9.65 & 0.001934 & 1b + c/2001 a1 & 2.4062 & 10.71 & 0.005738 & 2a + c/2001 a2 & 0.7790 & 14.22 & 0.000447 & ii + c/2001 b1 & 2.9280 & 11.14 & 0.000071 & 1b + c/2001 b2 & 5.3065 & 5.60 & 0.000187 & 1b + c/2001 c1 & 5.1046 & 10.30 & 0.000020 & 1a + c/2001 g1 & 8.2356 & 7.45 & 0.000024 & 1a + c/2001 ht50 & 2.7921 & 3.15 & 0.000878 & 1a + c/2001 k3 & 3.0601 & 9.80 & 0.000072 & 1b + c/2001 k5 & 5.1843 & 8.10 & 0.000029 & 1a + c/2001 n2 & 2.6686 & 5.77 & 0.000455 & 1a + c/2001 rx14 & 2.0576 & 6.06 & 0.000776 & 1a + c/2001 s1 & 3.7500 & 11.36 & 0.018168 & + c/2001 u6 & 4.4064 & 7.42 & 0.000998 & 1a + c/2001 w1 & 2.3995 & 14.04 & & + c/2001 x1 & 1.6976 & 12.54 & 0.002285 & 2a + c/2002 b2 & 3.8430 & 10.12 & & + c/2002 b3 & 6.0525 & 7.92 & & + c/2002 c2 & 3.2538 & 8.88 & 0.000393 & 1b + c/2002 e2 & 1.4664 & 10.34 & 0.000173 & 1b + c/2002 h2 & 1.6348 & 13.29 & 0.004024 & 2a + c/2002 k2 & 5.2378 & 7.62 & & + c/2002 l9 & 7.0316 & 5.60 & 0.000035 & 2a + c/2002 o4 & 0.7762 & 13.59 & -0.000772 & 2a + c/2002 p1 & 6.5307 & 8.55 & 0.002023 & 2a + c/2002 q2 & 1.3062 & 16.09 & & + c/2002 q5 & 1.2430 & 16.59 & 0.000058 & 1b + c/2002 u2 & 1.2086 & 14.63 & 0.001075 & 1b +      the linear sample has very different properties from historical samples ( as typified by the everhart sample ) . figure  [ everhart_compare ] shows that the linear sample extends around 4 magnitudes deeper , and to much larger perihelia . the overlap is small : only @xmath13 of the linear comets lie within the absolute magnitude and perihelion region sampled by historical samples . analysis of the discovery telegrams indicates that almost all of the comets in the sample were originally identified as moving point sources . they were posted on the near earth object ( neo ) confirmation page at the minor planet center . follow - up observations then determined that the sources were spatially extended and hence comets . 77% were discovered before reaching perihelion ( fig  [ discover_hist ] ) , and 73% were were first detected when more than 3au from the sun . the necessity for follow - up potentially introduces two sources of incompleteness into this sample . firstly , some fraction of objects posted on the neo confirmation page are never followed up in enough detail to determine whether they are comets or not . timothy spahr kindly provided records of all objects posted to the neo confirmation page in 2000 - 2002 . only 11% of these were not followed - up well enough to determine an orbit : this places an upper limit on the fractional incompleteness of our sample due to failed follow - up . this is probably a conservative upper limit : most of these lost objects were most likely either not real to begin with or fast - moving objects only visible for a short window of time . secondly , some comets might have been inactive at these large heliocentric distances , and hence classified as minor planets . the minor planet centre database was checked for non - cometary objects on long - period , highly eccentric orbits , but only one was found which reached perihelion within the period 2000 - 2002 : 2002 rn109 . thus this too is not a major source of incompleteness . it also shows that most comets down to the linear magnitude limit are still active out to 10au from the sun . fig  [ q_a ] shows an intriguing correlation between perihelion distance and semi - major axis in the linear sample . this correlation was first noted by @xcite at smaller perihelia . they suggested that it was a selection effect . dynamically new comets are brighter at large heliocentric radii ( eg . * ? ? ? * ) , presumably due to extra outgassing at large heliocentric distances from their relatively pristine surfaces , due perhaps to @xmath14 or a water ice phase transition . the whipple data did not extend to distances beyond 4au from the sun . if this trend continues to larger heliocentric distances , however , it would make dynamically new comets far brighter than older comets with the same absolute magnitude . this could thus , in principle , bias the sample heavily towards new comets , and hence larger semi - major axes . the distribution of perihelion positions is shown in fig  [ peripos ] . the comets are weakly concentrated at intermediate galactic latitudes ( fig  [ bhist ] ) , consistent with the galactic tide playing a major part in making them observable @xcite . the galactic latitude distribution is not , however , significantly different from the predictions of a best - fit model (   [ best ] ) assuming a random distribution , as measured by the kolmogorov - smirnov ( ks ) test or the kuiper statistic . there are also no significant great - circle alignments @xcite . the linear comet sample was compared against a monte - carlo simulation of the long period comet distribution . in this section i discuss the parameters used in this simulation . the @xcite and @xcite studies are based on comets with a limited range of perihelion distances q and hence give only weak constraints on this distribution . everhart found a factor of two rise in the number of comets per unit perihelion between 0 and 1 au , but beyond that the data are consistent either with a continuing rise or a flat distribution . hughes found no significant trend in number of comets against perihelion , but his data are quite consistent with such a trend .    on theoretical grounds , however , a gentle rise in the number of comets as a function of perihelion is expected , as comets diffuse into the solar system past the barrier of giant planet perturbations ( eg . * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? as a first guess , i chose to model the perihelion distribution as an unbroken straight line : @xmath15 where @xmath16 gives a reasonable fit to the @xcite distribution . the @xcite slope is shallower , but only shown out to 3au . the distribution of semi - major axes @xmath7 makes no significant difference to the conclusions , as the comets are all very close to being on parabolic orbits . i chose to randomly class 40% of comets as dynamically new and given them all @xmath1720,000 , while the remainder were given a value of @xmath7 randomly and uniformly distributed between 1000 and 20,000 au . the time of perihelion passage , orbital inclination and perihelion direction were randomly chosen to give a uniform distribution on the celestial sphere . this ignores possible great - circle alignments @xcite and galactic tidal effects @xcite . @xcite found that the absolute magnitude distribution of comets was best fit by a broken power - law , with the break at @xmath18 . @xcite also found a break at about the same absolute magnitude , but was unable to decide whether it was a real break or simply the effect of increasingly incomplete samples at fainter magnitudes . to bracket the possibilities , i use a broken power - law of the form . @xmath19 where @xmath20 is the break magnitude , @xmath21 is the bright end slope and @xmath22 is the faint end slope . everhart gives @xmath23 , @xmath24 and @xmath25 . hughes gives @xmath26 and @xmath27 . if i assume that his observed break is real and not an artefact of sample incompleteness , his plots imply a faint end slope of @xmath28 , which i adopt to bracket the possibilities . this version of the hughes formulation thus predicts dramatically fewer faint comets , as would be expected as these are the ones for which everhart applies the largest incompleteness correction fraction . @xcite and @xcite give different estimates of the long - period comet flux through the inner solar system . everhart estimates a flux of 8000 comets with @xmath29 and @xmath30 over 127 years . hughes estimates a flux of 0.53 comets per year brighter than @xmath31 per unit perihelion . i ran the simulations using both . for a given model comet population , the aim is to simulate the observable properties of a sample that matches the selection effects of the linear sample . the simulation starts off by generating a set of comets that reach perihelion within a three year period . the comets are randomly generated using the model distributions in the previous section . the model extends down to @xmath32 and out to @xmath33 . i generated two model populations : one using the everhart absolute magnitude distribution and flux , the other using the hughes absolute magnitude distribution and flux . in the everhart model 260,000 comets are generated , while only 4,000 are needed in the hughes model . the position of each comet is then calculated at 24 hour intervals throughout the three year period , and its heliocentric distance @xmath34 , distance from the earth @xmath35 , apparent celestial coordinates and apparent angular velocity written to file . pure elliptical orbits are used : no attempt is made to allow for planetary perturbations .    at each location , the apparent total magnitude is then calculated . comets are notoriously variable in how rapidly their apparent magnitude varies as a function of heliocentric distance . i parameterize this , as is conventional , using equation  [ eqabsmag ] . two values of @xmath6 are randomly assigned to each comet : one for before perihelion and another for after . for the 40% of our simulated comets that i set as dynamically new , the pre - perihelion value of @xmath6 is chosen from a gaussian distribution of mean 2.44 and standard deviation 0.3 . post - perihelion , the mean is 3.35 with a scatter of 0.27 . for the remaining comets , the pre - perihelion numbers are 5.0 with a scatter of 0.8 , and after perihelion 3.5 with a scatter of 0.5 . all these values are taken from @xcite . at large distances from the sun , cometary activity will presumably stop , and a bare nucleus will have @xmath36 . the near - ubiquitous detection of fuzz around the linear comets implies , however , that this only happens further from the sun than our models reach . this approach can only be a rough approximation to the real radial brightness dependence . the value of @xmath6 for an individual comet is typically time dependent , and all the tabulated values are for comets within @xmath37 au of the sun , whereas our simulation tracks them out beyond 10au . in addition , comets show occasional flares above and beyond this power - law behavior , which i have not attempted to model . such flares might introduce an amplification bias , with comets being pushed over the detection threshold . as we will see , however , the slope of the absolute magnitude distribution is so gentle that this is unlikely to be a major effect . the apparent total magnitude of each simulated comet can now be calculated at any given point in its orbit . unfortunately , in any ccd - based survey , it is the peak surface brightness of the coma that determines whether something has been seen , not the total magnitude . the linear skymaps , furthermore , list only the magnitude limit _ for a point source _ at any given location on the sky ( typically around 19 ) . as discussed in the introduction , total cometary magnitudes are notoriously unreliable . quantitative studies prefer more reproducible and physically meaningful parameters such as @xmath38 ( eg . * ? ? ? unfortunately , not enough long period comets have been studied in this way to derive the @xmath39 distribution . we are therefore forced to attempt some conversion between total magnitudes and point - source equivalent magnitudes . for bright and near - by comets , this correction can be as large as @xmath13 magnitudes ( eg . * ? ? ? the comets in the linear sample were , however , typically first seen when very faint ( fig  [ maghist ] ) , and were generally mistaken for point sources in the initial observation . we might therefore expect the correction factor to be much smaller , at least when close to the detection threshold . the histogram of detection magnitudes ( fig  [ maghist ] ) climbs steeply down to @xmath40 , and then falls off fast ( the one comet discovered when fainter than 20th mag was found by spacewatch , which has a fainter magnitude limit ) . this fall - off occurs at almost exactly the same magnitudes as linear s point source limit , which ranged from around 18 to 20 . i thus conclude that near the linear detection threshold , total magnitudes and point source equivalent magnitudes are similar . when generating mock samples , it is only the magnitude near the detection threshold that determines whether or not a given model comet is included in the mock catalog . the exact value of this correction value was set iteratively . i initially guess that the point - source equivalent ( pse ) magnitude and total magnitude ( tm ) are the same , and run the simulations of the comet sample . i use the model that best fits the data (   [ best ] ) to calculate the predicted discovery magnitude distribution , and compare this to the observed distribution . i then tweak the pse@xmath41tm correction to bring the histograms into agreement . the best match is obtained when pse@xmath41tm@xmath42 ( fig  [ maghist ] ) . i use a value of @xmath43 throughout this paper , except where otherwise noted . the predicted magnitude is corrected for the effects of trailing . linear exposure times vary from 3 to 12 sec : the latter was used in the correction as it minimised the predicted number of very faint comets . 2   seeing ( fwhm ) was assumed . trailing makes very little difference , except for the very faintest comets . linear uses unfiltered ccd magnitudes while the historical surveys use unfiltered visual magnitudes . these will be somewhat different , due to the different wavelength sensitivity of the human eye and of the linear ccds , but the discrepancy should only be a few tenths of a magnitude at most , and hence is not a dominant source of error . anoher possible worry : the absolute magnitudes i quote for the comets in the linear sample ( table  [ sampletab ] ) are derived from total magnitudes measured when the comets were barely resolved and far from the sun , using a model for the heliocentric brightness variation . the absolute magnitudes fit by everhart and hughes are based on observations of highly extended comets observed close to the sun and earth . these are thus very different quantities , and might well be systematically different , if there is some error in our heliocentric brightness correction , if total magnitudes for barely resolved comets are systematicaly different from total magnitudes for greatly extended comets , or if there is some systematic bias in the discovery magnitudes reported to the central bureau of astronomical telegrams .    to test this , i picked out the five comets in the linear sample which were discovered when far ( more than 3.5 au ) from the sun , but which subsequently passed close enough to the earth and sun for traditional small telescope visual magnitude estimates ( within 2au ) . dan green kindly provided me with compilations of visual magnitude estimates of these comets while they were close to the earth and sun , taken from the archives of the international comet quarterly . these visual / small telescope magnitude estimates should be broadly comparable to the data on which the everhart and hughes papers were based . i then compared the predicted magnitudes when close to the sun ( based on the discovery magnitude and the model in this paper ) with the tabulated observations . there was a considerable scatter in the measured visual magnitudes for each comet : i simply averaged all visual small telescope magnitudes made when the comet was as close as possible to 1au from both sun and earth . my predicted magnitudes were consistent with the observed values , albeit with a large scatter . the mean difference ( predicted magnitude minus observed magnitude ) was @xmath44 , where the error indicates the @xmath45 dispersion of the mean . this is not , alas , a strong constraint , but does indicate that the two magnitude scales are not grossly discrepant . the final step is to determine whether linear imaged a part of the sky in which the comet was detectable and within its magnitude limit . the published linear skymaps show that during each dark period in 2000 - 2002 , they attempted to survey the region whose midnight hour angle is in the range @xmath46 , and in the declination range @xmath47 . in winter months with good weather , they surveyed more than 90% of this whole region down to a point - source magnitude limit of better than 19 . in bad months , this dropped to a magnitude limit of around 18.5 over 60% of this region , and occasionally worse . in the mean month , 72% of this region was surveyed to a visual magnitude limit of 18.5 or better . the exact pattern surveyed was complex and variable : the only constant was that the densest regions of the galactic plane were avoided . each field was imaged five times in succession , with 3  12 sec per exposure , once in every dark period . this sky coverage was approximated as follows . each comet that enters the @xmath46 , @xmath47 region at any point , with a point - source equivalent ( pse ) magnitude brighter than 19 is considered to have been potentially observable , unless it was within ten degrees of the galactic plane . if a comet is predicted to be detectable for an entire lunation , it is given a 80% chance of having been detected during that lunation . if it was predicted to be visible for less than the whole lunation , it is given a probability of having been detected equal to 80% of the fraction of the lunation for which is was potentially observable .    does this approximation match the real , more complex selection function ? this was tested by manually checking 100 simulated comet ephemerides , containing monthly positions and magnitudes , against the real linear sky - maps . the approximation was found to give a number and absolute magnitude distribution of detected comets indistinguishable from the manually checked sample . this approach should slightly overestimate the probability of a comet being observed , as comets could be blended with star or galaxy images . experience suggests that at this relatively bright magnitude limit , this is only a few percent effect at worst , at least away from the denser regions of the galactic plane , which the survey did not cover . another possible source of error is sky subtraction . it is unclear exactly how the linear survey do their sky subtraction , but if some of the extended coma emission is included in the sky value , this will artificially suppress the point source equivalent magnitude . the worst case sky subtraction algorithm would be to measure the sky brightness from an annulus close to the comet nucleus . if i assume that the sky is measured only 5  from the nucleus ( unlikely ) , we can used the observed @xmath48 surface brightness profiles of cometary comae @xcite to show that this sky subtraction algorithm would reduce the measured comet brightness by @xmath49 mag . more plausible sky subtraction schemes would reduce it by less , or not at all . thus this too is not a dominant source of error . in this section , i compare the data to the monte - carlo simulations of what linear would have seen over a three year period . in the scatter plots , the data are compared to a single run of the simulation . in all histograms and quoted statistics , however , the data are compared against the average or sum ( as appropriate ) of five monte - carlo runs based on the same comet population model . this summation should suppress the error due to small number statistics in the simulated samples to well below that of the observed sample . the observed sample properties are first compared against the monte - carlo prediction using the @xcite flux normalization and absolute magnitude distribution . figs  [ complot_eve ] , [ qhist ] and [ hhist ] compare the distribution of model and observed comets in perihelion @xmath50 and absolute magnitude @xmath4 . the upper boundary to the locus of points is set by the magnitude limit , and seems a reasonable fit to the data . but the model clearly predicts far too many comets : 2228 as compared to the 52 observed . the discrepancy is primarily at fainter absolute magnitudes : brighter than @xmath51 the model and data are consistent . the worst discrepancy is for comets fainter than @xmath52 : ie . fainter than the data on which everhart based his model . it is thus a test of the power - law extrapolation . the model predicts that linear should have seen 1848 comets fainter than @xmath53 , whereas only 12 were seen . irrespective of the flux normalization , the shape of the absolute magnitude distribution ( fig  [ hhist ] ) is wrong : a ks - test comparison with the observed distribution shows that they are inconsistent with @xmath54 confidence . is this discrepancy real , or is there some reason why linear would miss faint comets close to the earth ? the model comets with @xmath55 are predicted to be observable for a median period of 52 days , at a median distance from the earth of @xmath56 au . their typical apparent angular velocity is predicted to be @xmath57 degrees per day . their observational properties are thus typical of near earth objects , which linear finds in profusion . it is thus hard to see what selection effect could prevent their detection . grant stokes ( personal communication ) confirms that there is nothing in their data analysis which should preclude the discovery of comets like these . image trailing and short observability windows do reduce the number of these comets seen , but these are already taken into account by the monte - carlo simulation . could the discrepancy be an artifact of the various approximations made in the model ? the discrepancy is insensitive to assumptions about the dependence of brightness or comet number on heliocentric distance , as these sources are observed at close to 1au . one possibility is that i have incorrectly estimated the effective magnitude limit of linear for sources with these apparent total magnitudes . to test this , i repeated the analysis with a magnitude limit set two magnitudes brighter than my best estimate . this reduced the discrepancy but did not remove it : the prediction dropped to 577 observed comets fainter than @xmath58 , still more than two orders of magnitude above the data . none of the plausible incompletenesses in the data , nor other assumptions in the model can come close to removing this discrepancy . i therefore conclude that the everhart model can not be extrapolated to absolute magnitudes fainter than @xmath58 .    even at brighter absolute magnitudes , however , there remains a substantial discrepancy . the model predicts that 188 comets with @xmath59 and @xmath60 should have entered the solar system within the three year period , and that 86% of them ( 162 ) would have been detected by linear . only 21 such comets were observed . it is hard to see that linear could have missed many comets this bright passing this close to the sun . the model predicts that these comets should remain visible for a median 208 days ( 7 lunations ) , so almost regardless of position on the sky , they should have had several opportunities to be observed . they spend much of this time many magnitudes above the survey detection limit . indeed , the 21 comets observed with these properties were discovered a median 11 months before perihelion , at a median heliocentric distance of 4.3au , confirming that these are easy targets . the discrepancy occurs mostly at the fainter magnitudes within this range : brighter than @xmath51 there is no significant difference between the everhart predictions and the linear observations . i conclude , therefore , that the everhart model fails in two ways . firstly , the quoted normalization of 8,000 comets per 127 years with @xmath29 and @xmath60 is too high by a factor of @xmath61 . secondly , the faint end slope of the everhart absolute magnitude relation is much too steep , and immensely over - predicts the number of faint comets . this second conclusion was first reached by @xcite : the current paper independently confirms their result . both discrepancies suggest that everhart overestimated the incompleteness of his sample of long - period comets . the discrepancy goes away where the incompleteness correction is small , but is largest at the faint magnitudes where the correction is large . a discrepancy here is perhaps not surprising , as the correction factors calculated by everhart were so large : he corrected the 256 observed comets to a flux of 8000 : a factor of 31 . my analysis reduces this correction factor to only @xmath62 . one possible reason for the difference : everhart calculated the detection threshold for typical historical comet searchers , and assumed that the same threshold applied when searching for comets initially , and when making follow - up observations of known comets . his model was validated by noting that the last observations of comets occurred close to the time when his model suggested that they dropped below detectability . but let us hypothesize that comets just above the detection threshold might be missed as the telescope speeds past during a scan for new comets , even though they could be detected when looking hard for an already known comet at a known position . this would reduce the length of time over which a given comet could have been detected . detections would thus have occurred earlier in the detectability window , and the correction factor for incompleteness would thus decrease . i now compare the data against a monte - carlo simulation using my version of the @xcite absolute magnitude distribution and normalization , combined with the linearly rising perihelion distribution ( figs  [ qhist ] , [ hhist ] , [ complot_hug ] ) . once again , the overall envelope of points agrees well with the model , giving some confidence that the selection effects have been modeled correctly . the predictions from the hughes model are in much better agreement with the data . there is no vast excess of faint predicted comets , implying that the break seen in hughes data was real , and hence that the flatter faint - end slope of the absolute magnitude distribution is more accurate . neither the perihelion nor absolute magnitude distributions , however , are formally consistent with the observations at the 99% confidence level , as measured by the ks - test . the overall flux normalization is also too high : the model predicts that linear should have seen 171 comets , rather than the 52 observed . there is no significant discrepancy within the region in which hughes quoted his flux normalization ( 0.54 comets per year with @xmath63 per unit perihelion ) : the discrepancy is at fainter absolute magnitudes and larger perihelia . once again the discrepancy is fairly robust against the exact detection limit : dropping the detection threshold by a magnitude reduces the predicted comet numbers to 148 - still too high . how can this discrepancy be addressed ? possible incompletenesses in the linear sample were discussed in   [ prop ] and they can at best increase the observed numbers by @xmath64% . the hughes flux normalization is unlikely to be too low , as it was based on observed counts of very bright comets and made no correction for incompleteness . i therefore tried to improve the match by tinkering with the absolute magnitude and perihelion distributions . i first tried reducing the faint end slope of the absolute magnitude relation . if we assume that the linear sample is 20% incomplete , we need to reduce the faint end slope from 1.07 down to 0.8 to bring the number of predicted comets down to the observed number . unfortunately , this changes the observed absolute magnitude distribution too much : a ks test shows that a model with this slope predicts an observed @xmath4 distribution inconsistent with the data with greater than 99.99% confidence . i then tried changing the perihelion distribution . decreasing the slope @xmath65 in eqn  [ perieq ] to zero brought the predicted number of comets down to 95 , but the perihelion distribution is now too skewed towards small values of @xmath50 ( 99.96% confidence ) . i next tried combining both approaches . decreasing the faint end slope to 1.0 , combined with a flat perihelion distribution , brought the predicted numbers into line with the observed numbers . both the perihelion and absolute magnitude distributions were individually marginally acceptable ( ks - test gave 8 and 5% probabilities of them coming from the same population as the data ) but the joint probability was still uncomfortably low ( though the magnitude limit cut means that the two distributions are not independent , so this should not be taken too seriously ) . the model predicted too many comets with @xmath66 and @xmath67 , and too few in the middle . moving the location of the break in the absolute magnitude relation to fainter magnitudes was also a failure : given that the comet flux normalisation is at brighter magnitudes , this simply increased the number of fainter comets still further above the observations . i therefore adopted a different perihelion distribution : one that rises from @xmath68 out to @xmath69 , and is a power - law beyond that . this preserves the everhart observation of a drop in comet numbers below @xmath70 , while allowing us to tinker with the distribution further out . the parameterization used was : @xmath71 where @xmath72 controls the behavior at large perihelia . i then ran a grid of models , varying @xmath72 and the faint end slope of the absolute magnitude distribution ( @xmath22 in equation  [ heq ] ) . each simulated population was tested against the data in three ways : a ks - test on the perihelion distribution , a ks - test on the absolute magnitude distribution , and a chi squared test on the overall predicted number of comets . the latter was done for both the observed number of comets and a number 10% higher , to allow for possible incompletenesses . the lowest of these three significance values was used to compute the goodness - of - fit conutours in fig  [ contour ] . note that these contours include only random errors : the systematic errors are almost certainly larger , especially on @xmath72 . the lowest probability rather than the joint probability was used becuase the three tests are not strictly independent . quite a tight constraint could be placed on @xmath22 : @xmath73 ( 95% confidence , not including systematic errors ) . the constraint on @xmath72 was weaker : @xmath74 . no useful constraint could be placed on the bright - end slope @xmath21 : in the modeling i use the @xcite value of 2.2 , but it makes little difference . note that these slopes are often described in the literature using the @xmath75 parameter : @xmath76 , so our best - fit faint end slope has @xmath77 . the predicted distribution of comets for the best fit model is shown in figs  [ qhist ] , [ hhist ] and [ complot_f ] . models generated using this model predict @xmath78 ( @xmath45 ) observed comets , in excellent agreement with the data . this model was used to predict the discovery magnitude distribution ( fig  [ maghist ] ) . this comparison was used to set the equivalent point source vs. total magnitude offset , as described in   [ mags ] . my preferred model thus approximately preserves the faint - end slope and normalization derived by hughes . a flat perihelion distribution is marginally ruled out , and best fits are obtained for one that rises from the sun out to @xmath79 and is either flat or gently falling beyond that . the best - fit model can be used to estimate the flux of long - period comets through the inner solar system . by definition , this model uses the @xcite flux of 0.53 comets per year per unit perihelion , brighter than @xmath80 . @xcite estimated a flux of 8000 long - period comets per 127 years with @xmath29 and @xmath60 . my model suggests that the flux of comets with these parameters is much lower : 11 long - period comets per year ( 1600 per 127 years ) . the model suggests that linear is picking up over 60% of comets with these parameters . i estimate a true flux of 37 comets / year with @xmath81 and @xmath82 , of which linear is detecting @xmath83% . many published estimates of the number of comets in the oort cloud use the @xcite comet flux as their starting point , and hence should be revised down . estimates include @xcite , @xcite , @xcite and @xcite . the linear sample includes 22 comets with @xmath29 and @xmath60 over a three year period . 5 of these were dynamically new , 11 dynamically old , and 6 had orbit determinations too poor to tell . if we assume that the comets without good orbit determinations break up between new and old in the same ratio as the other comets , we find a flux of 7 dynamically new comets over the three years . my model suggests that the linear sample is @xmath84% complete for finding comets in this range , implying a total flux of dynamically new comets of @xmath37 per year . this corresponds to @xmath85 per unit perihelion per year if a uniform perihelion distribution is assumed . this is a factor of @xmath86 lower than was assumed by @xcite and @xcite . @xcite and @xcite assume long - period comet fluxes ( not just the dynamically new ones ) of @xmath87 per year per au down to @xmath29 , compared to my value of @xmath88 . after correction , all these estimates come out roughly the same : 1  3 @xmath89 in the outer oort cloud , down to @xmath29 . if this is extended to fainter absolute magnitudes , i estimate an outer oort cloud population of @xmath90 comets down to @xmath91 . my model has a much shallower slope of the absolute magnitude distribution than that of @xcite , so the average mass of a comet _ increases_. this cancels out the decreased number of oort cloud comets i predict to give a similar total oort cloud mass to previous estimates ( eg . * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ) , both of which used a mean mass computed by integrating the everhart curve . i used two suggested mass - brightness relations to estimate masses from the observed absolute magnitudes : one from @xcite and one from @xcite . note that this relation is extremely uncertain - very few long - period comets have had even their nuclear magnitudes measured . the average mass is crucially dependent on the slope of the bright end of the absolute magnitude distribution , which the data in this paper do not constrain . i bracket the possibilities by using both the everhart and hughes values ( 3.54 and 2.2 respectively ) . i use my own estimate of the faint - end slope .    for the everhart bright - end slope , the total mass converges as you go to brighter magnitudes : the bulk of the mass resides in comets with @xmath92 . for the hughes bright - end slope , however , the total mass diverges as you count brighter comets . the bright comets are rare , but their mass goes up faster than their number goes down at bright magnitudes . thus for the weissman mass relation , comets with @xmath93 are 10,000 times more massive than those with @xmath94 . the hughes bright - end slope , however , suggests that they are only 2,600 times less common , so the total mass in the brighter comets is actually four times greater . for the everhart bright - end slope , however , the brighter comets would be 300,000 times less common . the everhart slope is thus physically more appealing , as it avoids the need for a bright cut - off . given the success of both the hughes normalization and faint - end slope in fitting our sample , however , his bright - end slope should perhaps be taken seriously , leading to the prospect of an oort cloud dominated ( in mass terms ) by very large comets . in this section , i will cut off the magnitude range of comets at @xmath95 , but this is arbitrary and will have a large effect on the total oort cloud mass if the hughes distribution is assumed . @xcite showed that kuiper belt objects have a break in their mass distribution at sizes of @xmath96 km , which corresponds to @xmath97 (   [ small ] ) . this may or may not apply to oort cloud comets . if i take the everhart slope , the mean mass of comets down to @xmath58 is @xmath98 g for the @xcite mass relation , and @xmath99 g for the @xcite relation . if i take the hughes slope , however , the average masses rise to @xmath100 g and @xmath101 g respectively . these values translate into total outer oort cloud masses of 2  40 earth masses . my model can be used to calculate the probability of a long - period comet impacting the earth . @xcite calculated that the probability of a given long - period comet with @xmath102au impacting the earth is @xmath103 per perihelion passage . my model suggests that the flux of comets brighter than @xmath32 with @xmath66au is 8 per year . the mean time between comet collisions with the earth is thus @xmath83 million years : very comparable to the figure calculated by @xcite , and to the mean time between global extinction events .    most of these comets will , however , be quite small . using the conversion between absolute magnitude and radius described in   [ small ] , a comet with @xmath104 has a radius of only @xmath64 m : too small to cause a global extinction event . comets with radii of 1 km or greater ( @xmath105 ) are rarer - the mean time between collisions with comets this large is @xmath106 million years . the shallow faint end slope means that collisions with even small long - period comets are rare . if , for example , the tunguska impact was caused by a comet ( eg . * ) , it would have a mass of @xmath107 g @xcite and hence an absolute magnitude of @xmath108 . the probability of such a long - period comet impacting the earth in the last 100 years is thus @xmath109 . the tunguska impactor must therefore be either asteroidal ( eg . * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ) or associated with a _ short - period _ comet ( eg . * ? ? ? no comet has ever been detected with a strongly hyperbolic original orbit @xcite : ie . a comet that was not gravitationally bound to the solar system . several authors have discussed this ( eg . * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ) , with many claiming that this is surprising . oort cloud formation models predict that for every comet that reaches the classical outer oort cloud , a factor @xmath110100 more are expelled into interstellar space ( eg . if most stars have planets , and if planetary formation is usually accompanied by comet ejection , then there should be a substantial population of free - floating interstellar comets . by some estimates , we should have expected to have seen one or more such comets by now , passing through the inner solar system . the results in this paper impact upon this question in two ways . firstly , the non - detection of interstellar comets in the linear sample places an upper limit on their space density . secondly , most previous estimates of the expected number of interstellar comets relied upon the @xcite comet flux : our lower comet flux thus leads to smaller predictions of the interstellar comet density . what limit can we place upon the space density of interstellar comets ( those with strongly hyperbolic orbits ) from the non - detection of any by linear ? i will assume that interstellar comets have the same absolute magnitude distribution that i derive for long period comets , and that their apparent brightness varies with heliocentric distance in the same way as dynamically new inbound comets in our model . given these assumptions , and an assumed magnitude limit of 19 ( point source equivalent ) , one can derive the distance @xmath34 out to which a comet with any given absolute magnitude could have been detected . to convert this into the volume surveyed during the three years of the survey , one must allow for the motion of the comets with respect to the solar system , which can carry new comets into range . typical motions of nearby stars with respect to the sun are @xmath111 @xcite . the volume surveyed in a survey of duration @xmath112 is thus @xmath113 the product of this equation and the absolute magnitude distribution ( equation  [ heq ] ) was integrated to calculate the number of comets potentially within linear s magnitude limit , for a given assumed space density of interstellar comets ( defined as the number of interstellar comets per cubic astronomical unit brighter than @xmath58 ) . the integral suggests that the bulk of interstellar comets detected will be those with absolute magnitudes near the break at @xmath31 . the results are quite sensitive to the adopted bright - end slope of the absolute magnitude distribution , being 40% lower for the everhart slope as compared to the hughes slope . not all of these comets will be seen : my model suggests that linear finds @xmath114% of the oort cloud comets within its magnitude limit . the fraction may be lower for interstellar comets because they move faster and hence are not observable for long , but the velocity difference is only @xmath115% . furthermore , a larger fraction of interstellar comets will be brght ones seen at large heliocentric distances , where the visibility period is larger . i adopt a conservative 50% detection probability , which should be ample to include comets not being followed up or not having good orbit determinations . the mean number of comets seen over the three years is then evaluated as a function of the assumed average density . if more than 5 comets are predicted to have been observed , the poisson probability of us having not seen any interstellar comets is less than 5% : this is our adopted limit . i thus derive an upper limit on the local space density of interstellar comets of @xmath116 per cubic au ( 95% confidence ) if the hughes bright - end slope is assumed . for the everhart bright - end slope , this limit increases to @xmath117 per cubic au . these limits are very comparable to the best existing limit : that of @xcite . sekanina s limit is , however , based upon everhart s papers and should thus be regarded with some suspicion . i can extend this calculation by noting that linear has not discovered any interstellar comets in other years . from 1999 through to the end of 2004 their monthly sky coverage ( though not available in detail ) is at least comparable to that during my sample period . these extra three years of data reduce our upper limits to 3  4.5 @xmath118 per cubit au . i now evaluate the expected space density of interstellar comets , given our reduced oort cloud population estimate . following @xcite , the number density of interstellar comets @xmath119 is given by : @xmath120 where @xmath121 is the local number density of stars , @xmath122 is the mean number of outer oort cloud comets per star , and @xmath123 is the ratio of comets expelled from a solar system to the number ending up in the outer oort cloud . i adopt @xmath124 per cubic parsec , from the 8pc sample of @xcite : this is consistent with the value used by @xcite but considerably lower than the value used by @xcite . for @xmath122 , i assume that the number of comets generated per star is proportional to its mass and metallicity . this may or may not be true , but is consistent with the observed tendency for low mass stars to lack hot jupiter planets ( eg . * ? ? ? * and refs therein ) . the local stellar population is dominated by low mass dwarfs : the average stellar mass of the nearby stars in the @xcite catalogue is only @xmath125 . the average metallicity of near - by f and g stars is @xmath126 \sim -0.14 $ ] @xcite : no information is available for local dwarf stars , so i assume the same value . assuming that the outer oort cloud population derived in  [ number ] is typical of local stars with solar mass and metallicity , i therefore derive @xmath127 . the most uncertain parameter is @xmath123 : literature values range from 3  100 ( eg . * ; * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? .    given these parameters , @xmath128 . thus even in the most optimistic case , the predicted flux is an order of magnitude below current limits . could future surveys reach these predicted densities ? i ran the simulation for five year surveys reaching to deeper magnitude limits . a survey reaching 24th magnitude ( perhaps panstarrs ) would place 95% upper limits of @xmath129 , and might hence detect one or two interstellar comets if @xmath123 is very large . @xcite reached similar conclusions . a survey reaching 26th magnitude ( lsst ? ) would push the limit down to @xmath130 , which would be enough to detect or rule out a large value of @xmath123 . this prediction does , however , depend crucially on the assumed brightness behavior of comets a long way from the sun . simple models which assume that oort cloud comets have an isotropic velocity dispersion imply a constant number of comets per unit perihelion . @xmath6-body integrations ( eg . * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ) , in contrast , imply a rising number of comets at larger perihelia , due to the diffusion process of comets past the perturbations of the giant planets . both @xcite and @xcite , for example , predict an increase in the number of comets per unit perihelion of @xmath131 between @xmath69 and @xmath132 ( though this is an extrapolation of the wiegert & tremaine model which is only shown out to @xmath133 ) . is this consistent with the linear sample ?    the best - fit model has the number of comets per unit perihelion ( beyond @xmath134 ) going as a power law of index @xmath74 ( 95% confidence ) , ie . a gentle _ fall_. to get a rise in numbers consistent with the @xcite and @xcite predictions , we require @xmath135 , which is inconsistent with our model with 99% confidence . the measured perihelion distribution is , however , somewhat degenerate with the assumed dependence of comet brightness on heliocentric distance : @xmath6 in equation  [ eqabsmag ] . as i have repeatedly noted , the choice of @xmath6 is an approximation based on extrapolations of observations obtained at much smaller heliocentric distances . we can estimate the change in @xmath6 that would be needed to bring our observations into line with the @xcite predictions . we need to drop the predicted brightnesses of comets with @xmath136 by enough to reduce the observed numbers by 50% , to meet our 95% upper limit . given our best - fit absolute magnitude relation , this requires that @xmath6 be increased by @xmath137 . this is quite a small rise - well within the observed scatter of @xmath6 values seen at lower perihelia . if , for example , i had used the canonical value of @xmath12 for all comets , rather than our more complex scheme , this would make dynamically new comets much fainter when far from the sun , as required ( at the expense of the correlation seen in fig  [ q_a ] ) . the data in this paper , while suggestive , are not therefore significantly at odds with the theoretical predictions . a better understanding of heliocentric brightness variations when distant from the sun will be needed to see if this anomaly is real . the faint - end slope of the absolute magnitude relation derived in this paper ( @xmath138 ) is very flat : the number of comets per unit magnitude barely increases as you go fainter . this presumably indicates that small comets are not that much more abundant than large ones . if the absolute magnitudes are converted to nuclear masses , using either the @xcite or @xcite relations , i find that the differential number of comets per unit mass @xmath139 goes as : @xmath140    @xcite made the case for the existence of small comets : those with nuclei only meters to tens of meters in radius . if we assume the @xcite relationship between mass and absolute magnitude , and a density of @xmath141 , 100 m radius corresponds to @xmath142 and 10 m to @xmath143 . linear is therefore detecting at least a few comets with nuclei smaller than 100 m . similar small comets are also detected by the lasco instrument on the soho spacecraft @xcite , though these are mostly fragments of recently disintegrated larger comets @xcite . @xcite was unclear on whether the shallow faint - end slope was real or a selection effect : i confirm that it is real . @xcite pointed out that small long - period comets must be rare from statistics of comets passing close to the earth . @xcite found a similar paucity of small jupiter - family comets .    in this section , i point out that the shallowness of the faint - end slope is actually quite interesting theoretically . collisions are rare in the oort cloud @xcite , so the nuclear size distribution should remain largely unchanged from when the proto - comets were planetesimals expelled from the protoplanetary disk @xcite . @xcite modeled the size distribution of planetesimals in the protoplanetary disk . these models imply that 100 m diameter objects should outnumber 2 km sized objects by a factor of @xmath144 ( per unit log radius ) in the oldest disks modeled . our faint - end slope , however , if combined with the @xcite mass / absolute magnitude relation , implies a ratio of only @xmath145 . the size distribution of planetesimals may be greatly modified by collisions while they lie within the dense environment of the proto - planetary disk . most models of this collisional evolution also , however , predict much flatter size distributions than we see : they typically predict an increase in comet numbers , even at faint magnitudes , of a factor of @xmath146 per magnitude @xcite . this is much greater than my measurement ( @xmath147 ) .    as noted in  [ eve ] , our shallow faint - end slope is quite robust to sample incompletenesses and model assumptions . the conversion of absolute magnitudes to radii is , however , highly uncertain even at bright magnitudes , let alone the faint absolute magnitudes of relevance here . theoretical predictions are also quite uncertain @xcite , and may be consistent with this slope . another possibility , however , is that the probability of a planetesimal escaping the protoplanetary disk and reaching the oort cloud is size - dependent . @xcite , for example , suggested that collisions between planetesimals would act to circularize their orbits , and would prevent them from escaping into the oort cloud until the density of planetesimals was greatly depleted ( see also * ? ? ? the square - cube law would suggest that this effect is most serious for smaller planetesimals , which may be ground down to dust before escaping . this could thus explain the deficit of small comets . alternatively , gas drag could play the same role : the largely gaseous nature of the giant planets indicates that the protoplanetary disk was still full of gas when the giant planets formed . no published modelling currently includes this effect . another possibility : the square - cube law implies that small comets may loose their volatiles faster than large ones . fading may thus be more severe for these comets , making them harder to detect . a final possibility is that comets have been exposed to high temperatures at some point in their history . the resultant loss of volatiles could thus destroy small comets without much affecting the numbers of large ones . @xcite tentatively suggest this as a reason for the lack of jupiter - family comets with small nuclei . long period comets might have been exposed to high temperatures while still in the proto - planetary disk . once in the oort cloud , temperatures are much lower . nearby supernovae and o - stars may have temporarily heated them enough to remove some volatiles @xcite , but this should not appreciably affect the numbers of small comets . i note in passing that my models are strongly inconsistent with the claims by @xcite for an immense population of small comets bombarding the earth . these claims have , however , already been ruled out in many other ways ( eg . * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ) .      the model in this paper can be used to guide future automated comet - searches . the most basic conclusion follows from the shallow faint - end slope of the number / absolute magnitude relation . this means that to find more comets , a survey should always try to maximize the area covered rather than going deep in a small area . if linear , for example , exposed for six times as long per field , it would be sensitive to fainter comets , and would hence see @xmath148 times more comets per unit area . but it would cover a six times smaller area . the more frequently a survey covers a given area of sky , the higher the probability of a given comet being detected . in fig  [ freq ] , however , i show that this is not an enormous effect : decreasing the survey frequency for a hypothetical survey from weekly to biannual only drops the number of detected comets by @xmath64% . the comets lost are primarily those with fainter absolute magnitudes , because their visibility period is small . the small number lost is a direct consequence of the shallow faint - end slope : there are few small comets to lose .    in fig [ faint ] , i show the predicted samples that would be found by telescopes using a similar survey technique to linear , but going deeper . the deeper limit essentially increases the absolute magnitude limit reached at all perihelia , and by increasing the time over which comets are visible , also improves the completeness for brighter comets . over 3 years , a survey to 20th mag would detect 103 comets , to 22nd mag would detect 150 and to 24th mag , 186 comets . this is much fewer than @xcite estimated . the discrepancy is probably due to my shallow inferred absolute magnitude and perihelion distributions , which mean that the dramatic increase in sensitivity of these surveys as compared to linear only yields a relatively small increase in sample size . i conclude that telescopes such as skymapper , panstarrs and lsst , each capable of surveying large areas to deeper than 22nd magnitude , should be capable of detecting more than 50 long - period comets per year . a substantial fraction of these are forecast to have perihelia beyond 10au , though this conclusion relies upon the rather shaky assumptions of how brightness varies with heliocentric distance this far out . thus five years should suffice to build up a quantitatively selected sample of long - period comets equal in size to any historical sample . six main conclusions can be drawn from this analysis :    1 . the outer oort cloud contains @xmath90 comets down to @xmath91 ( @xmath149 comets down to @xmath58 ) . this is 2  10 times fewer comets than previous published estimates . 2 . the average mass of these comets is , however , higher than previous estimates . down to @xmath58 , the average mass is between @xmath99 g and @xmath101 g , leading to a total mass in the outer oort cloud of 2  40 earth masses , comparable to or larger than previous estimates . the mass of the oort cloud may be dominated by a few large comets . small comets do exist , but are rarer than predicted by many models . this may be because they have difficulty escaping from the protoplanetary disk . the probability of the earth being hit by a long - period comet similar in energy to the tunguska impactor is only one in forty million per year . i place an upper limit on the space density of interstellar comets of @xmath150 per cubic au ( 95% confidence ) . this is still an order of magnitude above our revised prediction for the space density of interstellar comets . the number of long - period comets per unit perihelion seems to decline , or at best rise slowly beyond 2au . this does not agree with theoretical predictions . the discrepancy may be resolved if comets are fainter at large heliocentric distances than i assume . future survey telescopes should be able to assemble samples of several hundred long - period comets in a few years of operation . the major weakness in this analysis is in the photometry : in particular in our limited understanding of how the brightness of comets varies with heliocentric distance when far from the sun , and in how to convert ill - defined total magnitudes into more reproducible and physically meaningful parameters such as @xmath39 . the data exist to address these problems , but are not publicly available . i would like to thank grant kennedy , eriita jones and chris weekes for their work on aspects of this paper , stephen pravdo and grant stokes for responding to e - mail questions about their neo surveys , timothy spahr for providing details of objects posted to the neo confirmation page , and dan green for provide magnitude measurements from the archives of the international comet quarterly . paul weissmann was referee on an earlier version of this paper : his detailed comments were invaluable in educating the author ( an extragalactic astronomer by training ) in comet lore .
Abstract:

Answer: the absolute magnitude and perihelion distributions of long - period comets are derived , using data from the lincoln near - earth asteroid research ( linear ) survey . the results are surprising in three ways . firstly , the flux of comets through the inner solar system is much lower than some previous estimates . secondly , the expected rise in comet numbers to larger perihelia is not seen . thirdly , the number of comets per unit absolute magnitude does not significantly rise to fainter magnitudes . these results imply that the oort cloud contains many fewer comets than some previous estimates , that small long - period comets collide with the earth too infrequently to be a plausible source of tunguska - style impacts , and that some physical process must have prevented small icy planetesmals from reaching the oort cloud , or have rendered them unobservable . a tight limit is placed on the space density of interstellar comets , but the predicted space density is lower still . the number of long - period comets that will be discovered by telescopes such as skymapper , pan - starrs and lsst is predicted , and the optimum observing strategy discussed .