NavList:

   

Reply

Thanks to Kent Nordstrom for spelling out the details of his lunar 
calculations. I think that between us we can now reconcile many of our 
differences.

He wrote-
"Firstly I hope
we agree that it is the mean time for the LD observation that has to be used
as reference for calculating altitudes of (in this case) the moon and the
sun. The mean time for LD observation was 06-22-59 (type of time still not
completely clear to me)."

Yes, we agree. And the "type of time" is simply UT, which Jeremy took from 
his chronometer, for which we are imagining that the lunar distance is 
providing a cross-check. Because the lunar-distance almanac information that 
Kent used was based on UT, then the time derived from it is also UT.

I think I can see why Kent and I disagree by a few minutes about our 
calculated Moon altitude. There's a transcription error crept in somehow. 
Jeremy's first Moon altitude was stated by him to be timed at 06h 20m 44s, 
but Kent has based his sums on a time of "06-20-13". If Kent recalculates, I 
suspect he will come much closer to my own figure.

And then he writes, about the Moon corrections-

"Refr -29,5m (George -0,083=4m 58,8s)

It is not clear to me how George�s refraction has been calculated."

Kent's refraction at an altitude of nearly 61�, is far too high, and I 
suggest it should perhaps have been that number of arc-seconds rather than 
arc-minutes. And the figure I gave for refraction at that angle wasn't 
the -.083� quoted by Kent, but -.0083�, which is about right for that 
altitude.

Putting those matters right, I wonder if Kent and I can now agree about all 
the numbers that apply to the Moon.

=========================

About Sun corrections, Kent wrote-

"For the sun it seems that we have reached the same altitude, anyway I don�t
understand George�s data on refraction (seems to be the same as for the
moon). My refraction for the sun is -1m 21,02s."

Indeed, we agree completely about that, and I'm sorry to have made a 
transcription error that made the Sun refraction appear so confusing. I had 
actually done the calculation on another sheet of paper, in which my Sun 
refraction worked out to be about the same as Kent's value, as can be seen 
by subtracting the relevant numbers-

"32.9564 alt above true horizon
 -.0083 refraction
--------
32.9314"

the difference being 0.025�, or 1.5 arc-minutes, not .0083�. But then, 
transcribing the value from that sheet into my email page, in error I copied 
the Moon's refraction rather than the Sun's, which is why the email wrongly 
read "-.0083 refraction" for the Sun. At an altitude of 32.9564�, my Almanac 
table gives me a value of -1.5', which is what I actually used in the 
correction, and this explains why we agree over the final result for the 
Sun. I don't quite see where Kent gets his refraction of  -1m 21.02s from, 
but that isn't a big disagreement, between us. Sorry about adding to the 
confusion, though.

=============================

Having done all that, we can arrive at a corrected lunar distance, and from 
that the UT at which the observation was made.

Kent used a value of observed lunar distance that differed by more than 30' 
from mine, because he allowed for the Sun semidiameter by adding it, rather 
than subtracting, as the peculiar circumstances of Jeremy's observation 
seemed to call for. As a result, he arrived at a GMT that was over an hour 
late on the chronometer . He commented-

"GMT 07-26-52,9 (George 06-24-53). This difference depends of course on how
the LD�s were measured. However the method for measurement by �overlapping�
edges does not convince me. It seems to be a construction afterwards."

Yes, of course. It's a pragmatic attempt to allow, retrospectively, for how 
the observation must have been made. What alternative explanation does Kent 
have to offer? Of course, if Kent won't make that allowance, then an 
enormous error of over an hour in GMT will arise, and a longitude error of 
15� or so; the very discrepancy that prompted Jeremy's call for help.

==============================

But next, the bit that really puzzles me about Kent's treatment is how he 
manages to invoke sidereal time. That would come in only if he was getting 
his astronomical positions from an Astronomer's almanac that gave 
sky-positions in terms of right-ascension, rather than hour-angle.

Once the clock has been set to a GMT that's derived from the lunar (and only 
differs by a couple of minutes from the on-board chronometer) then it's a 
simple matter to get the sky position at the relevant moment, from the 
Almanac, for Sun and/or Moon, then work out and plot the relevant intercept 
from an assumed position. Each body will then provide a good position line 
for longitude, one being roughly due East, the other being roughly due West, 
but very poor information about latitude. It's a standard procedure of 
latitude-by-chronometer, and has little to to with the lunar distance 
measurement itself. Because of the discrepancy, between the chronometer and 
the lunar observation, of just less than 2 minutes of time, there will be a 
difference of just less than 30' between the longitudes calculated by the 
two methods.

George.

contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com
or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK. 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply