Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re:       Re: David Thompson's Navigational Technique
    From: Bruce Stark
    Date: 2004 May 31, 15:03 EDT
    The plot thickens.

    I was reading George's post again, and didn't skim over the part where he says "
    Wouldn't an angle of 24" in lunar-distance convert to 48" (not 12") in time, which would convert to 12 minutes (not 3 minutes) of longitude?" That's been cleared up now. But since he was right, I wanted to work the observations and try to figure out what was going on.

    Just as Thompson may have done, I turned to a 1796 edition of Moore for the sun's declination. But after taking the declination out (of Table XVII for the years 1792, 1796, 1800, and 1804) I noticed some small print in the table heading: "Each being Leap-Year." An alarm went off.

    The point is, 1800 was not a leap year. It isn't divisible by 400. Wasn't this the cause a big foofaraw, and a humiliation for Moore? For Oct. 11th the declination is given as 7° 24' south. For Oct. 12th, 7° 47' south. Is that correct? 

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)