NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: The Nautical Day
From: Trevor Kenchington
Date: 2004 Feb 7, 20:12 +0000
From: Trevor Kenchington
Date: 2004 Feb 7, 20:12 +0000
George, You wrote: > The next question is- when did the noon-to-noon nautical day drop out of > use? We know that the noon-to-noon astronomical day remained the basis for > nautical tables until 1925. > > The Admiralty may have directed that it should be dropped by the Royal Navy > in 1805, but it was certainly still alive-and-kicking in the Arctic whaling > fleet in 1813, and a reference quoted by Chuck Taylor states that it > persisted into the 1820's in the East India Company.. I have already pointed to Smyth's entries for "Day" and "Nautical Day". To quote them in full: "DAY. The astronomical day is reckoned from noon to noon, continuously through the twenty-four hours, like the other days. It commences at noon, twelve hours after the civil day, which itself begins twelve hours after the nautical day, so that the noon of the civil day, the beginning of the astronomical day, and the end of the nautical day, occur at the same moment. (See the words SOLAR and SIDEREAL.)" "NAUTICAL DAY. This day commences at noon, twelve hours before the civil day, and ends at noon of the day following. (See DAY.)" No hints there that the old system was fading from use. However, Smyth sometimes quoted (almost) verbatim from earlier nautical dictionaries (as in 200 years earlier for at least one entry). He also sometimes noted changing usage within his lifetime. I'd guess from the above entries in his book that the use of the nautical day was still widespread in English merchant and warships circa 1860. (His book was first published in 1867.) Since other contributions to this thread have noted that official records were required to be kept in civil days from much earlier, I would venture to suggest that ships maintained multiple calendars just as they did multiple times: GMT for celestial navigation but local apparent time for setting watches, for example. It seems bizarre to us, though we are all familiar with financial years which do not follow calendar years and everybody copes with the (quite unnecessary) extra complication. George also wrote: > Trevor Kenchington says- > >>The Nautical Day, 24 hours early than the Astronomical Day, was long >>established and of general application -- at least in the >>English-speaking world. (Smyth, for example, treated it as an >>established fact, without reservations or caveats.) I'm not sure when it >>entirely ended. I have a vague memory that it was still used in the >>grain trade (under sail) in the 1930s, though I would be pushed to find >>a reference to that. > > I wish only to question that last sentence. If the nautical day was indeed > being used so late as the 1930's, I would expect to see some references to > it in my collection of textbooks and tables dating from the mid 1800s, and > (from indexes only, not cover-to-cover scanning) I can find no such > references. Not that such lack-of-evidence is in any way conclusive. It > would be interesting to learn more, if only to avoid errors when examining > old logs. I'm not sure where I got that notion from, so it is hard to check it . There are many memoirs of the grain "races" but mostly written by young middle-class Englishmen who shipped before the mast for the adventure. They would not have been involved in navigation. The ship's officers were mostly Swedish-speaking Finnish nationals from the Aland Islands and they have not left us readily-accessible accounts. I do have Greenhill & Hackman's "Herzogin Cecilie" (1991), which includes some quotations from that ship's logbook in the hours leading up to her stranding in 1936. Those clearly used the civil day (changing 24 to 25 April at midnight). Thus, I would tend to agree with George's scepticism. Before withdrawing any suggestion of such a late use of the nautical day, however, I would note that the same logbook says that they "Changed the ship's time to land time at 2100 hours" of the day that they arrived off Falmouth for orders. Most likely, that was either a matter of correcting their reckoning for small accumulated errors in their chronometer time or perhaps an adjustment of the watch schedule to match GMT rather than local apparent time. However, it remains possible from this limited evidence that the ship had been using the nautical day during her blue-water voyage from Australia and changed to the civil day on arriving in coastal waters. That is all that I can contribute on this topic. 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 http://home.istar.ca/~gadus