NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Sun Moon Lunars to 155 degrees
From: Brad Morris
Date: 2010 Mar 30, 10:00 -0400
From: Brad Morris
Date: 2010 Mar 30, 10:00 -0400
Hi George In deference to the vastly larger experience in lunars present on the list... With the understanding that the chronometer was running quite poorly, I chose time to be the independent variable, the log values to be "knowns" and attempted to understand the meaning of the terms of the log. In particular, due to Kermit's questions about the meaning of altitudes, I thought it to be an interesting exercise. First, let us assume for the moment that Bayley is a competent mathematician and navigator. Therefore, if the values he transcribes agree with each other and provide a solution consistent with itself, we can state that the modern solution of time which causes this agreement to be valid, to be correct. It is perfectly valid to use time as an independent variable in this way. Once we have agreement of all the values of the terms, and we acknowledge that Bayley is competent, we can then evaluate the DEFINITION of the terms in the log. The definition of terms, as Kermit rightly points out, is critical at this juncture. Indeed, 5 seconds more provides 0' in lunar distance error and 0.1' of longitude error. Thus the values injected into Frank's calculator should be Date 4-Aug-1773 Time 15-48-17 Sun's LL alt 5 degrees 41.75 minutes Moon's LL alt 10 degrees 31.88 minutes DR Long 227 degrees 40.5 minutes EAST DR Lat 20 degrees 49 minutes SOUTH Temperature 76 degrees F IC 0 For height of eye, I defaulted to 12 You wrote: Brad has not yet deduced the LAT obtained from that Sun altitude. When he has done this, and differenced GMT and LAT (allowing for equation of time), Adventure's longitude will be the result. Indeed true. I have not deduced the LAT. That is highly dependent upon an understanding of the true altitude of the sun, the sun's true declination and the latitude. The sun's declination is a function of the precise date and time of the observation. But GMT is also unknown, the chronometer notwithstanding. The true altitude of the sun at that time is also a matter of debate, since we do not yet have perfect agreement of the DEFINITION of the LL alt of the sun given in the log. Therefore, deducing LAT from it might be premature. However.... Using (1) declination from the 1773 Nautical almanac N 17 degrees 8 minutes 8 seconds (2) the sun's semi-diameter from the 1773 Nautical Almanac as 15 minutes 49.5 seconds (3) the sun's altitude AS GIVEN IN THE LOG 5 degrees 41 minutes 45 seconds (4) and the latitude S20 degrees 49 minutes I get LAT to be 06-54-00. This is a time in the morning, consistent with our large distance and a waning moon. Now I ask you, is that the right altitude? Or the right time? Best Regards Brad -----Original Message----- From: navlist-bounce@fer3.com [mailto:navlist-bounce@fer3.com] On Behalf Of George Huxtable Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:58 AM To: NavList@fer3.com Subject: [NavList] Re: AW: Sun Moon Lunars to 155 degrees Brad wrote- "For the same lunar distance at 155 degrees 13.1 minutes, I used Frank's online calculator and a time of 15-48-12. I injected the altitudes exactly as given in the log into the LL (lower limb) fields of the calculator. Frank's calculator states that the error in the lunar is now Zero minutes! The error in longitude is a mere 1.3 minutes. Therefore, if you know precisely what Frank means by his altitude fields, you can determine more about the data presented in the log. The solution that Frank provides states "Cleared using observed altitude". Finally the calculator states an error of 3.8 minutes in Moon altitude and 3.4 minutes in the Sun's altitude. In attempting to use 3.6 minutes as an index correction, it is shown that the error in alitudes are in opposite directions." ======================= Brad needs to be careful here. Frank's online lunar calculator is intended for a rather different purpose. It needs to know the observer's position (latitude and longitude), and GMT, and then it will predict a lunar distance, which an observer can compare with his observation. Brad has taken a stated position, and an observed lunar distance, and using the program backwards, has adjusted the GMT until it gives the right value for lunar distance. He has found a suitable time, at which the calculated lunar distance corresponds to Bayly's observation, providing an error on longitude of just 1.3 arc-minutes. Indeed, another 5 seconds-worth of adjustment to GMT would have reduced that error to zero. That is a perfectly valid thing to do, IF the observer's position is known. But to Bayley, his position wasn't known. His latitude was known (or at least assumed, well enough). But his longitude wasn't known. It depended on the result of the lunar observation, the value of GMT. And ALSO depended (and this is the crucial matter) on his measurement of local time, which presumably was obtained, at that same moment as the lunar, from the altitude of the Sun, though there's nothing on that page to tell us so. If Brad had started from a different position, in longitude, he would have got a different value for GMT. So, without that crucial observation for Local Apparent Time, he has, as yet, ascertained nothing. I think (and no doubt he will correct me here if I have it wrong) that Brad has not yet deduced the LAT obtained from that Sun altitude. When he has done this, and differenced GMT and LAT (allowing for equation of time), Adventure's longitude will be the result. That is unlikely to be very different from the initial assumption of longitude that Brad has started from, but only because that assumption was based on Bayly's competent observations, for both Greenwich Time and Local Time. Both are needed. If the resulting longitude does differ greatly from the presumed value, then a reiteration is called for, because position changes affect the clearing process (a bit). If we do take Bayly's position, it's interesting that the value for Greenwich Time that it produces is about two-and-a half hours ahead of the reading of his chronometer. I had warned, in a previous postin, that times on that chronometer should not be taken at face value, because of its poor, and worsening, slow running since the voyage started the year before. And I reckoned, from the graph that Howes produced, that it was likely to be running something like 2.5 hours slow, by that stage in the voyage. Which is just what it's turned out to be. No doubt, Howes deduced that graph from just the sort of observations, aboard Adventure, that we are looking at now, which just goes to show that we are all self-consistent. And also shows that without lunars to correct it, that chronometer would have become a useless tool by that stage of the voyage. No doubt there will be a table of corrections to their chronometers, at various dates, to be found in Wales and Bayly. 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. . "Confidentiality and Privilege Notice The information transmitted by this electronic mail (and any attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of Tactronics; it is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee named above and may constitute information that is privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to same, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this electronic mail (or any attachments) or any part thereof. If you have received this electronic mail (and any attachments) in error, please call us immediately and send written confirmation that same has been deleted from your system. Thank you."