NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Lewis & Clark
From: Bruce Stark
Date: 2004 May 25, 18:49 EDT
From: Bruce Stark
Date: 2004 May 25, 18:49 EDT
After the brush-up with Lewis & Clark's Kaskaskia observations, set before us in George's April 7th posting, I expect list members will feel a bit of sympathy for Ferdinand Hassler, who was handed all the observations when the expedition returned.
Clearly Lewis and Clark were outstandingly intelligent, and they both seemed to take a real interest in nautical astronomy. They put their hearts into it, and in some places they made excellent observations. It's my view, though, that they weren't entirely sure what they should have been doing. All too often they would spend a great deal of time taking observations, then leave out a critical piece of information. And none of us can argue that the numbers they brought back, or that have survived, are immaculate.
Jefferson had wisely advised Lewis not to bother with calculation. Just take observations and bring the numbers back in understandable form. What the captains needed was written advice on observing, and on getting numbers read off, recorded, and copied without mistakes. Also a checklist, so nothing important would be left out. What they got was Patterson's Notebook, which is almost entirely about working observations, rather than taking them. Even supposing they had been expected to work observations, I doubt that a more confusing text could have been found.
Speaking of good L&C observations, try the June 2nd 1804 group, pages 270 and 271 of Moulton's Volume 2.
I get a latitude of 38° 31.'1 north, same as Lewis. Professor Bergantino, who went over the ground, puts the camp 5' further north.
By the way, my view is that, with the back observation, the 2° 11.'7 correction was meant to be applied to the altitude itself.
For longitude, I get 91° 41 west. Bergantino puts it 11' further west.
I threw out the first of the five lunars. Lewis averaged that set of eight himself, and doesn't give the individual measurements. His average got 89° 40', far enough from the other four sets to be suspect.
The remaining four get:
91° 56'
91° 24'
91° 45'
91° 38'
Bruce
Clearly Lewis and Clark were outstandingly intelligent, and they both seemed to take a real interest in nautical astronomy. They put their hearts into it, and in some places they made excellent observations. It's my view, though, that they weren't entirely sure what they should have been doing. All too often they would spend a great deal of time taking observations, then leave out a critical piece of information. And none of us can argue that the numbers they brought back, or that have survived, are immaculate.
Jefferson had wisely advised Lewis not to bother with calculation. Just take observations and bring the numbers back in understandable form. What the captains needed was written advice on observing, and on getting numbers read off, recorded, and copied without mistakes. Also a checklist, so nothing important would be left out. What they got was Patterson's Notebook, which is almost entirely about working observations, rather than taking them. Even supposing they had been expected to work observations, I doubt that a more confusing text could have been found.
Speaking of good L&C observations, try the June 2nd 1804 group, pages 270 and 271 of Moulton's Volume 2.
I get a latitude of 38° 31.'1 north, same as Lewis. Professor Bergantino, who went over the ground, puts the camp 5' further north.
By the way, my view is that, with the back observation, the 2° 11.'7 correction was meant to be applied to the altitude itself.
For longitude, I get 91° 41 west. Bergantino puts it 11' further west.
I threw out the first of the five lunars. Lewis averaged that set of eight himself, and doesn't give the individual measurements. His average got 89° 40', far enough from the other four sets to be suspect.
The remaining four get:
91° 56'
91° 24'
91° 45'
91° 38'
Bruce
