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: Perpendicularity check
    From: Fred Hebard
    Date: 2004 Sep 22, 14:02 -0400

    Thank you for your report.  I expect that your line of sight needs to
    be parallel to the plane of the sextant to accurately center the index
    mirror.  Bowditch and Bruce Bauer's "Sextant Handbook" discuss this
    Until you get an almanac, the US Naval Observatory has a very nice site
    at  from which you can obtain altitudes of
    celestial bodies at 0.1' of arc accuracy.  From the link above,
    navigate to "Data Services",  then "Celestial Navigation Data" and
    enter the time and location of your observation.  Currently, I use it
    mostly to detect blunders in my observations and calculations.
    The old inverting telescopes had one nice feature for observing lunars,
    which was a cross hair reticule. This allowed one to observe the
    contact at the exact center of the telescope.  If your eye is also in
    line with the telescope and the telescope with the sextant, I believe
    this ensures that the instrument is properly oriented.
    My understanding is that observed lunar distances will be too large if
    the sextant is not properly oriented.  If anybody could speak to this,
    it would help me solve a current problem I am having with lunar
    observations; my telescope does not have cross hairs.
    On Sep 22, 2004, at 12:13 PM, Alexandre Eremenko wrote:
    > I recently bought an SNO-T sextant.
    > This is my first sextant and now I am playing with it
    > day and night:-) Btw, the decision to buy this one
    > came after reading some favorable
    > coverage of Soviet sextants in this list.
    > (For those interested in
    > the Russian sextants, I add few remarks at the end of this message).
    > Now I have many questions, and here is the first one:
    > All sextant books and manuals describe how to check
    > perpendicularity of the index mirror to the plane of the arc,
    > but it seems to me that the books I read do not describe this
    > test properly.
    > "Place the sextant on a horizontal table,
    > and put two visors on the arc at 0 and 120 degrees.
    > (One can use any two objects of equal height, with straight edges,
    > like dominoes; Celestaire sells
    > special cylinders for this, and Russian sextants come with
    > special diopters).
    > Then you look at the right edge of the index mirror,
    > trying to align
    > the direct image of the upper edge of the visor at 0
    > with the reflected image of the upper edge of the mirror at 120.
    > If they are aligned, the mirror is perpendicular to the arc".
    > No book specifies exactly where your eye should be with
    > respect to the sextant.
    > However, everyone who did this test carefully on a sextant with
    > large mirrors should have noticed that the result strongly
    > depends on your eye position, more precisely on the height of
    > your eye over the table. And this height makes a very substantial
    > difference.
    > To see this, just move your eye a bit up and down,
    > trying to align the
    > images of the visors near the upper-right corner
    > of the index mirror
    > and then near the lower-right corner. You will see that this is
    > impossible.
    > Simple geometry confirms this.
    > The same simple geometry shows WHAT this test really checks.
    > It checks the perpendicularity of the index mirror to the
    > plane passing through the upper edges of both visors AND YOUR EYE.
    > This plane strongly depends on your eye position, and in general,
    > it is not necessarily parallel to the plane of the arc.
    > A simplified version of this test, as described in Chauvenet
    > and several other books does not use the visors.
    > You just look on the arc itself, trying to allign its reflected
    > image with the direct image. But when you do this, it is even harder
    > to keep your eye in the plane of the arc!
    > I suppose this problem becomes insignificant if the sextant
    > is large and the mirrors are small (as I see on the pictures of old
    > sextants).
    > Can anyone give a reference on a more complete discussion of this
    > test?
    > Now on my SNO-T purchase.
    > I confirm the opinion expressed earlier in this list that
    > the Russian (tuchkan) and Ukrainian (mmely.ru, maur) dealers
    > are trustworthy. They replied my e-mails promptly.
    > Moreover, they specialize on marine equipment and they
    > KNOW something about the merchandise they cell,
    > unlike some other dealers on e-bay.
    > The SNO-T I bought was made in 1990 but it was sold as "new"
    > (was never used), had factory wrapping, a spare mirror, all
    > accessories,
    > and probably came from a Navy warehouse.
    > It has two scopes: an inverting one (7x30) and a Galilean one,
    > (3x40).
    > So far I noticed two defects:
    > a) the box is very poor.
    > It is made of pine, and has some iron screws
    > in it! One of the two pine clamps that hold the sextant was broken
    > during the transportation (I suppose some custom oficer broke it when
    > trying to take the sextant out!). But due to the careful packing
    > with a lot of foam, the sextant was apparently not damaged.
    > As it was noticed earlier
    > on this mailing list, the box is very small.
    > This has evident advantages but also a disadvantage: you have to
    > detach the telescopes to store the sextant.
    > b) The inverting telescope (7x30) seems to be of poor quality.
    > (Or maybe I don't understand some of its hidden wondeful features:-)
    > As I understand, a modern 6x scope is nothing but a half of a
    > regular binocular. So I compare this SNO-T scope with my binoculars
    > (a very old Zeiss and an old Russian 8x30) and the binoculars
    > seem infinitely better. The Galilean scope is OK and I use it for
    > all my observations.
    > The results of the various tests for the instrumental error
    > are non-conclusive yet.
    > I can report some Sun, Moon and stars measurements which I made
    > from my balcony under the ideal conditions, with an artificial
    > horizon. These measurements seem to show errors
    > of about 0.4' (for the Sun) but I do not have an Almanach yet;
    > I am using the "Complete on board Celestial Navigator" which lists
    > the Sun position with only 1' precision. I hope that more precise
    > Almanach data will permit me to explore the ultimate sextant
    > precision.
    > There is also a unique feature which I like: the non-electric
    > illumination system. (I was taught that "electricity and salt water
    > are incompatible":-)
    > A magnifying glass with luminiscent casing
    > is used to take the arc and drum reading. It works for about 30
    > minutes after exposure of the sextant to bright light.
    > I find this very convenient for taking lunar distances from
    > my balcony late at night:-)
    > If there is interest in this group, I can continue with my
    > reviews of the old Soviet navy equipment (I recently bought a fine
    > super-precise 3-armed protractor, and a star globe, the things which
    > apparently
    > were not used in the West in the last 50 years).
    > Alex.

    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