NavList:

   

Reply

Kermit asks several relevant questions, and I will offer some "informed 
guesses", and suggestions.

"1 - We are to assume that all observations are supposed to be made on 
board a non-moving vessel and at the very same time."

No, they will mostly have been made from a vessel under way, except for 
those taken in harbour at the foot of that page. However, each 
corresponding set, of lunat distance and altitudes,  may well have been 
taken simultaneously, as such vessels were well-manned, with a number of 
competent observers on board, and  provided with two brass sextants, and 
most likely a number of wooden octants, good enough for taking altitudes. I 
imagine the Navy making a bit of a ceremony of the job.

"2 - We are to assume also that all given Angles are "raw data" corrected 
only for Instrument error. i.e. all remaining corrections remain to be 
performed as applicable and as follows :

2.1 - All Distances (Column 3 ) are "refracted topocentric from Limb to 
Limb" (if Moon + Sun)" or - as the case may be - "refracted topocentric 
from Star/Planet to Moon's Limb". Accordingly if we use 
'conventional/classical' clearing methods we are to transform such 
distances into "unrefracted geocentric from Center to Center" distances in 
order to compare such results to Maskelyne's tabular Lunar Distances, and"

Yes, I would think so, though it isn't obvious whether index error has 
already been allowed for, or not. My guess is that it probably has.

"2.2 - All heights (Columns 4 and 5) should be corrected for all 
appreciable effects and in accordance with our well known standard height 
reduction corrections, i.e. :

2.2.1 - Dip. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF EYE ? , and"

Wait, Kermit. It's a bit more complex than that. For the lunar distance 
itself, that gets corrected for parallax and refraction in the clearing 
process, so the altitudes to be input to that process won't normally have 
been corrected for those effects first; just for the dip. Which implies 
that you can't use a combined-correction, as given in modern almanacs. 
(though actually, the clearing process would be  little affected affected 
by any such pre-correction; it's very undemanding of great precision in the 
altitudes).

Where the normal altitude correction process applies is in getting Local 
Apparent Time, to compare with the GMT given by the lunar after converting 
LAT to LMT by applying the equation of time. I presume that in the case of 
a Sun-lunar, LAT was being calculated from the Sun altitude that was 
measured as part of that lunar, providing that this job had been 
deliberately done away from local noon. For a star-lunar, the star altitude 
would provide LAT, in a similar, but somewhat more complicated way. And for 
that purpose, all the normal altitude corrections need to be made, in the 
familiar manner.

As for height-of-eye, Beaglehole's volume 2 provides a draught of 
Resolution, not of Adventure that concerns us at present but no doubt very 
similar, and a measurement off that draught shows a nominal poop-deck 
height of about 18 feet above the water line, which will of course vary 
with lading. To that, we must add about 5 feet for the observer's eye.

"2.2.2 - Refraction. I can see that Temperatures are given in Column 9 but 
I fail to see any values given for Atmospheric Pressure, and"

From Beaglehole, the weather seems to have been generally benign over this 
period, when the two ships were keeping company, so in my view it would be 
fair to assume a standard value for pressure.

"2.2.3 - As applicable, Parallax and Augmented Semi-diameter."

Yes, and SD can be deduced from the parallax. It could be taken from a 
modern prediction or from the 1773 almanac.

"4.1 - The 3rd column title should be construed as "Distance from Moon's 
Limb from Sun's (Limb) or Star (Limb)" . Everybody agrees here ?"

I agree, that's observed distance, as Kermit has described.

"4.2 - At the end of each Lunar Distance given in this 3 rd column, we can 
read :

- either 2 "  +  " signs on top of one another (such as 05 Jul, 02 Aug, and 
several other dates), or
- only one "  +  " sign (such as 12 Jul, 12 Aug and several other dates), 
or
- one "  :  " sign (such as 14 Aug) , or even
- no sign at all, (such as  25 Jul, 13 and 25 Aug, and 8 Sep).

What do these codes mean ?

Obviously they must be (somewhat) related to the use of either the Moon's 
Near Limb or the Moon's Far Limb in case of Planetary/Stars Observations.

But ... in the case of Sun-Moon Lunars, the Moon's Near Limb is to be used 
(always). Accordingly such Sun-Moon Distances should then all bear the VERY 
SAME code. HOWEVER I can see FOUR different such codes : either 2 "  +  " 
on 09 Jul, or just one " + " on 10 Jul for example, or just nothing on 25 
Jul, or even a "  :  " sign on 14 Aug.

SO ... What is the exact meaning of all these codes ??? Some kind of 
reliability scale ??? If so, where are the (required) indications about 
Near/Far Limb in case of Star/Planetary Lunars ?then "


These are common printers' dagger symbols, that refer to a footnote 
somewhere, on another page. Perhaps Kermit may find it helpful to compare 
with the publicly-available text for the third voyage, which may offer an 
analogy, on this matter and perhaps on others..

For stars (I don't think lunar distances to planets were predicted until a 
later era), except very close to exact full moon, it should be rather easy 
to work it out. A planetarium program might be useful here (and elsewhere). 
What's needed is to know whether it's before, or after, full Moon, and 
whether the star was East or West of the Moon, which the almanac always 
made clear.

Some things to be aware of-

Lunar distances, then, and everything else, were tabulated in Greenwich 
Apparent Time, not GMT. So it's convenient to stick with apparent time 
throughout, especially if you use a digitised copy of the 1773 Nautical 
Almanac, which would be the most "authentic" way to work this example.. And 
then, there's no delta-T to worry about. However, users of modern 
predictions will have to allow for both the equation of time, because 
modern predictions relate to GMT, and also for the change in delta-T since 
1773.

Another problem to be aware of is that there were systematic errors in the 
lunar ephemeris then used, which varied rather cyclically over a month and 
could amount to 1' in Moon position, or 30' in longitude. These persisted 
over many years, in such a way that on a particular day, all mariners using 
these tables, wherever they were in the World, would find their longitudes 
displaced by the same amount.

The gap in observations, after 25 August, was because the Society Islands 
had been reached, and the ships were taking various anchrages at Matavai 
Bay, Tahiti, and other islands.

The position given, at the foot of the page, for "Omahareno" harbour, 
within Passe Rautoanui at the NW corner of Ulieres (more commonly named 
Raiatea), can be compared with modern values from Google Earth.

That page is convincing evidence that lunars were not just a mathematical 
abstraction, but a practical means of navigation, in no way inferior to the 
timekeeper technology of the day.

George.

contact George Huxtable, at  george@hux.me.uk
or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Antoine Couette" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:11 AM
Subject: [NavList] Re: AW: Sun Moon Lunars to 155 degrees


Hello to all,


Before we could start doing any reliable and conclusive "re-processing" of 
this wonderful page 174 of historical ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS, should we 
not get first a full understanding of all the data printed ?

This is what I have been able to figure out so far, with still some (BIG) 
questions unanswered yet.

Your answers, confirmations, corrections are highly desirable and your 
comments will be highly appreciated.

*******


1 - We are to assume that all observations are supposed to be made on board 
a non-moving vessel and at the very same time.

2 - We are to assume also that all given Angles are "raw data" corrected 
only for Instrument error. i.e. all remaining corrections remain to be 
performed as applicable and as follows :

2.1 - All Distances (Column 3 ) are "refracted topocentric from Limb to 
Limb" (if Moon + Sun)" or - as the case may be - "refracted topocentric 
from Star/Planet to Moon's Limb". Accordingly if we use 
'conventional/classical' clearing methods we are to transform such 
distances into "unrefracted geocentric from Center to Center" distances in 
order to compare such results to Maskelyne's tabular Lunar Distances, and

2.2 - All heights (Columns 4 and 5) should be corrected for all appreciable 
effects and in accordance with our well known standard height reduction 
corrections, i.e. :

2.2.1 - Dip. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF EYE ? , and

2.2.2 - Refraction. I can see that Temperatures are given in Column 9 but I 
fail to see any values given for Atmospheric Pressure, and

2.2.3 - As applicable, Parallax and Augmented Semi-diameter.


3 - FIRST COLUMN

3.1 - It gives the dates with codes for the names of week (Sun Figure for 
Sunday, Moon figure for Monday, ... ).

3.2 - Dates MIGHT possibly be local dates and not Greenwhich dates. This 
one is fairly simple to sort out with the help of the publihsed distances.

4 - THIRD COLUMN

4.1 - The 3rd column title should be construed as "Distance from Moon's 
Limb from Sun's (Limb) or Star (Limb)" . Everybody agrees here ?

4.2 - At the end of each Lunar Distance given in this 3 rd column, we can 
read :

- either 2 "  +  " signs on top of one another (such as 05 Jul, 02 Aug, and 
several other dates), or
- only one "  +  " sign (such as 12 Jul, 12 Aug and several other dates), 
or
- one "  :  " sign (such as 14 Aug) , or even
- no sign at all, (such as  25 Jul, 13 and 25 Aug, and 8 Sep).

What do these codes mean ?

Obviously they must be (somewhat) related to the use of either the Moon's 
Near Limb or the Moon's Far Limb in case of Planetary/Stars Observations.


But ... in the case of Sun-Moon Lunars, the Moon's Near Limb is to be used 
(always). Accordingly such Sun-Moon Distances should then all bear the VERY 
SAME code. HOWEVER I can see FOUR different such codes : either 2 "  +  " 
on 09 Jul, or just one " + " on 10 Jul for example, or just nothing on 25 
Jul, or even a "  :  " sign on 14 Aug.

SO ... What is the exact meaning of all these codes ??? Some kind of 
reliability scale ??? If so, where are the (required) indications about 
Near/Far Limb in case of Star/Planetary Lunars ?then

5 - NINTH COLUMN

Temperatures are given here in Farenheit scale. Everybody agrees here ?


6 - Apparently missing data :

6.1 - HEIGHT OF EYE. Does anybody have any clue here (Wolgang ?)

6.2 - Atmospheric Pressure. Should we go "standard" 29.92"/1013.25 HPa/Mb ?


*******


All your answers, confirmations and corrections are highly desirable and 
all your comments will be highly appreciated.

Again WARMEST THANKS TO WOLFGANG !


and Best Regards to you all,


Kermit


Antoine M. "Kermit" Couëtte
----------------------------------------------------------------
NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
Members may optionally receive posts by email.
To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
---------------------------------------------------------------- 

   

Reply