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: Impossible lunar example
    From: George Huxtable
    Date: 2010 Aug 29, 18:29 +0100

    This "impossible lunar"exist in two very similar versions. Maskelyne's 
    version, later retracted for a different Moon altitude, was presented 
    without additional information. Moore's, not quite the same, was given with 
    additional information such as longitude (by account, presumably) of 9º 
    West  (not 7º as Antoine mentions), date, and time.
    I wonder if Antoine is conflating elements of the two?
    contact George Huxtable, at  george@hux.me.uk
    or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
    or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: "Antoine Couette" 
    Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 6:00 PM
    Subject: [NavList] Re: Impossible lunar example
    Thank you Frank for publishing Maskelyne's Comments about our now well 
    known "impossible Lunar".
    Let us use Maskelyne confession then :
    Also Ex. IV p. 31 and 36, is in the same Situation, owing to a Mistake in 
    transcribing the Moon's Altitude 71d 6'2" instead of 41d 6'2"
    So we can now rework our Lunar example with :
    20 NOV 1796 TT-UT=14s4
    at one same unknown (and still yet to be determined) time - expected to be 
    in the vicinity of UT=18h46m - we observe the following three SEXTANT data 
    (all assumed to have been observed at the very same instant) :
    SUN-MOON SEXTANT DISTANCE 102°57'5, SEXTANT Height of SUNLL=18°47' and 
    SEXTANT Height of MOON LL=40°32'
    Height of Eye : 20 ft with all other conditions assumed to be standard.
    We can compute the following 2 positions :
    UT of Sextant Observation #1 = 18h23m49s1 with position #1 at 
    UT of Sextant Observation #2 = 18h23m35s0 with position #2 at 
    I did not crosscheck the results published hereabove against Frank's 
    Computer results, but they should agree to better that 0.1' as (almost) 
    ... Well... , both of these positions fall in the middle of nowhere in the 
    Pacific Ocean .. . with none of them anywhere near the Greewhich W007° 
    meridian ... which we already knew thanks to George's clever insight.
    So we might think that Maskelyn's data correction possibly either as 
    incomplete - since the UT value is close from the one he has quoted -, or 
    as a plausible reason that his initial example was created "ex nihilo" 
    since, even corrected with his amended height, this Lunar could NOT have 
    happened be anywhere near the Meridien W009° ...
    Unless somebody has a reasonable explanation to the above, including any 
    and all errors of mine, this "most important question" of ours still 
    remains an open one ...
    Thank you for your Attention and
    Best Regards
    Antoine M. "Kermit" Couëtte
    NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
    Members may optionally receive posts by email.
    To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com

    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)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site