Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

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

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    Name or NavList Code:
    Email:
       
    Reply
    Re: Lunars
    From: Frank Reed CT
    Date: 2005 Dec 9, 01:51 EST

    You wrote:
    "Site #   Error in  Lunar   Error in Lon
    2        0  min            -0.8  min
    3        -0.4  min         -11.6  min
    4        -1.3  min         -37.5  min
    5        -0.2  min         -7.3  min
    6        -0.1  min         -2.0  min
    7        0  min            -0.3  min
    8        -0.7  min         -22.6 min
    
    From this I  deduce a number of things. Firstly if my
    interpretation is correct I have a  consistent tendency
    to not quite bring the bodies into tangency.  This
    would be borne out by my sense that I had to try to
    bring things  closer and that the bright "penumbra" for
    lack of a better word - around the  moon caused me to
    prematurely assume tangency. Secondly I am  horribly
    inconsistent.
    Does anyone have suggestions about judging  tangency?
    Any other suggestions - other than practise - to
    improve  matters."
    
    Apart from the 1.3' error, these are EXCELLENT results, and you  should be
    very pleased with them. If the approximate standard deviation of your  lunars is
    0.2 arc minutes or so, you're doing very well. Don't worry so much  about the
    error in longitude. That's intrinsic to the method of lunar distances.  If
    you could get angular altitude measurements, as opposed to lunar distances,  as
    accurate as this for ordinary LOP celestial navigation, the error in position
    (longitude, if the object is bearing east or west) would be the same as the
    error in observation, in other words less than 0.2 nautical miles, in most
    cases.
    
    So what about that 1.3' error? I find in my observations, that the  errors
    seem to come from two sources. There is a seemingly irreducible scatter  of
    observations with a small error and then there is a secondary source of error
    that's quite a bit larger and more common than I would expect from the
    distribution of the "small" error. Another way of putting this is to say that  the
    error distribution has "fatter tails" than the expected normal distribution.  That
    second source of error might be something as simple as a hand tremor that
    develops with fatigue. Varying your procedures --taking breaks, holding the
    sextant differently-- might remove those larger errors. But that's just a
    guess... Could be anything!
    
    -FER
    42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N  72.1W.
    www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars
    
    
    

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Get a NavList ID Code

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

    A NavList ID Code guarantees your identity in NavList posts and allows faster posting of messages.

    Retrieve a NavList ID Code

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

    Email Settings

    NavList ID Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    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