Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Was Bowditch Table 15, now confused
    From: Bill B
    Date: 2005 Jan 28, 23:09 -0500

    OK. Then my understanding of the explanations/graphic representation is of
    sensible horizon is in sync.
    
    >>> As it happens, measurements
    >>> using a pool of oil or mercury are relative to the Sensible
    >>> Horizon.
    
    The "relative to sensible horizon" portion is where I begin to lose it.
    Relative is, well, relative. Observations of a body from plate of
    mercury/oil at sea level, on deck, on the ground at 700 ft above sea level,
    or on a stool at 703 ft above sea level will give the same results (noting
    the approx. 700 feet is insignificant relative to the radius of the Earth
    and resolution of the system).  Correct?
    
    Stated in my words (don't you just love active listening) if a pool of
    mercury/oil is 6 feet above water level, the plane it describes is the
    sensible horizon--same as an eye at 6 ft.
    
    Now the wrinkle.  If an eye is 6 ft above sea level, I apply a dip
    correction as I can see farther over the horizon--put another way the
    observed object appears higher than it would from sea level.  Yet I do not
    apply dip just because the a blue water tide is up 2 feet--the observed
    horizon went up along with my eye level (noting again the 2 feet is
    insignificant relative to the radius of the Earth and resolution of the
    system).
    
    When using an artificial horizon the liquid is my sea level and my horizon
    (observed angle is 2X when the observed body is factored in) so I do NOT
    apply dip.  Elevation of the pool of liquid and actual sea level is
    insignificant for practical purposes as noted above.
    
    Which brings us to a bubble level fitted to a sextant.  If I calibrate it so
    the bubble is centered while a natural sea horizon is aligned on both sides
    of the horizon mirror at almanac STP (discounting index error) while it is 6
    ft. above the water level, I would have to take dip into account in
    subsequent observations when using it on land.  Yes no?
    
    Mostly correct?
    
    Thanks
    
    Bill
    
    
    
    
    > How about this.
    >
    > Stand and look out to sea, but look above the sea/sky interface, on a line
    > perpendicular to the line that your body makes from feet to head: you are
    > looking out along the imaginary sensible horizon.  Then "dip" your eyes down
    > to the sea/sky interface, which is the visible horizon.  The angle traversed
    > by your eyes as they dip is the "Dip".
    >
    > The "horizon" that we are intuitively used to calling a horizon from
    > childhood (the sea/sky interface) is not part of the Horizon(tal) Coordinate
    > System, which is made up of imaginary lines.  The sensible horizon is,
    > however, part of the Horizonal Coordinate System.  The Horizontal Coordinate
    > System's horizons are perpendicular to a line from the center of the earth
    > through the point of the surface of the earth on which you are standing, to
    > a point on the celestial sphere above your head.  That frame of reference
    > moves as you move.
    >
    > Since you can see only the visibile horizon, then you have to apply the Dip
    > and Refraction corrections to convert your sextant measurement to the
    > Horizontal Coordinate System's frame of reference, in order to reduce a
    > sight.
    >
    > The Horizontal Coordinate System connected to the Terrestrial and Celestial
    > Coordinate Systems, and hence to the data in the Nautical Alamanc.
    >
    >>> Perhaps a clearer way to put it is that the Sensible Horizon
    >>> is perpendicular to the vertical.  As it happens, measurements
    >>> using a pool of oil or mercury are relative to the Sensible
    >>> Horizon.
    >>
    >> Not clear how to interpret that.
    >>
    >> Is the sensible horizon is a plane perpendicular to the vertical (line
    >> through center of the Earth and viewer), AT THE VIEWER'S HEIGHT
    >> OF EYE, as I
    >> understand Jim's drawing?
    >>
    >> General instructions for a pan of oil etc. instruct the user to
    >> place it on
    >> the ground.  No dip correction.  If it relates to the sensible horizon and
    >> my understanding of the definition is true, then dip correction would be
    >> required if the pan were placed on a stool?  That doesn't seem
    >> right to me.
    >>
    >> I do clearly understand I am deeply confused.
    >>
    >> Bill
    >>
    >>
    
    
    

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    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:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    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