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: Lunars: Jupiter's BIG.
    From: Trevor Kenchington
    Date: 2003 Dec 23, 18:18 +0000

    Fred Hebard wrote:
    >   One might not be able to rate a chronometer to the second using
    > lunars, but it could be rated to the minute, or about 30 seconds in the
    > hands of a good practitioner.
    I can see that knowing the difference between GMT and chronometer time
    to the nearest 30 seconds would be useful -- less than ideal, of course,
    but enough to get your longitude to within ten miles.
    But what benefit would there be in knowing the chronometer's rate to the
    nearest 30 seconds? (And what does that mean anyway: 30 seconds per day?
    Per week?) If a navigator was to take two lunar-distance observations,
    two days apart (with a third on the day between as a check, if desired)
    and if each observation had 95% confidence limits of 30 seconds either
    side of the best estimate, then the estimate of the time elapsed between
    those two observations would have 95% confidence limits of about 14
    seconds (I think), which would mean 7 seconds per day when compared to
    the chronometer's going. After a week without another lunar, the
    navigator would not know GMT to better than somewhere in a 100-second
    band, which translates into up to a 25-mile long area of possible
    position. After a month, that would swell to 100 miles, in
    near-equatorial latitudes. That is hardly a useful level of precision.
    A navigator who became uncertain of his chronometer's rate could resort
    to frequent lunars to check watch error but it would need a very long
    series of them before he would know the chronometer's rate well enough
    to quit doing the lunars and instead trust to the machinery for more
    than a few days at a time.
    Fred also wrote:
    > With a regression line, it is
    > important that a point near the middle of the line be chosen, and, in
    > general, averaging is much better than these graphical methods for
    > determining the time.  I believe George is making the same point.
    I think it is true that linear regression will always plot a line
    through the point defined by the average of the x values and the average
    of the y. If so, picking a point on the fitted line somewhere near the
    centre of the data will give a result essentially identical to averaging.
    Trevor Kenchington
    Trevor J. Kenchington PhD                         Gadus@iStar.ca
    Gadus Associates,                                 Office(902) 889-9250
    R.R.#1, Musquodoboit Harbour,                     Fax   (902) 889-9251
    Nova Scotia  B0J 2L0, CANADA                      Home  (902) 889-3555
                         Science Serving the Fisheries

    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