# NavList:

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

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
 Add Images & Files Posting Code: Name: Email:
Re: Working lunars from calculated altitudes.
From: Arthur Pearson
Date: 2002 Mar 29, 23:16 -0500

```George et. al.

This is a very helpful example. As I followed it along, I wondered how
important it would actually be to iteratively correct one's position
along with the time to converge on a more accurate GMT. The first
iteration of time improves the estimate of GMT about 25 minutes or
roughly half an hour. In a sailing vessel underway at 6 or 7 knots,
one's estimate of position would only change about 3 or 4 miles as a
result of that improved estimate of time. I took my most recent set of
distances and varied my position first by about 5 miles of latitude,
then separately by about 5 miles of longitude. Each time, I recalculated
the altitudes, re-cleared the distance, and re-estimated GMT. In both
cases, the resulting change to the estimate of GMT was less than 10
seconds.  It would seem that in practice on a sailing vessel,
uncertainty in position would have a much less significant impact on the
use of calculated altitudes than uncertainty in time. It makes the
calculated altitude technique a bit more plausible from a distance. I am
curious what history tells us about whether it was in fact employed by
professional seamen in the age of sail.

Thanks for this example and discussion,

Regards,
Arthur

-----Original Message-----
Huxtable
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 7:11 PM
Subject: Working lunars from calculated altitudes.

Working lunars from calculated altitudes.

When working a measured lunar distance to obtain a value for GMT, an
important factor to be taken into account is the altitude of the two
bodies
involved: particulaly that of the Moon, because the lunar distance is so
greatly affected by the Moon's parallax.

The traditional approach involves measuring the altitudes at
(effectively)
the same instant as the measure of lunar distance was made. That is a
(relatively) straightforward matter that has been dealt with before, and
will not be considered here.

However, from the early days of lunars, it has been accepted that such a
measurement of the altitudes may be difficult or even impossoble,
because
the horizon can not be clearly seen. It has been regarded as an
acceptable
substitute to calculate the altitudes at that instant instead of
measuring
them, based on the predicted positions in the nautical almanac. That
procedure, and its complications, is what this posting is about.

Two difficulties arise here. The navigator needs to know the GMT in
order
to look up the predicted positions of the bodies in the almanac, but he
doesn't yet know the value of GMT, as that is what he is trying to
obtain.
And the altitude he calculates will be affected by his position on the
Earth's surface, latitude and longitude. Though a navigator may well
have a
good idea of his latitude from a recent meridian altitude of the Sun,
his
longitude is in the end what he is trying to obtain from a knowledge of
GMT, so at the start this is unknown.

The reverse process is much simpler. If an observer happens to know
exactly
where he is on the Earth, and what is the GMT (perhaps from GPS) then he
can work out exactly what the altitudes will be at the moment of
measuring
a lunar distance, without measuring them. He can then use these values
to
correct (clear) the lunar distances, and from that obtain a value for
GMT
which should correspond with what the GPS has told him. This is a
circular
process: it has its value in indicating how well the observer is making
and
correcting his measurements, but it is not a way of finding position.
This
is what Bruce Stark has done in his Pollux-lunar measurements made on
March
26 (local date).

In general, a navigator using lunars will not have such a foreknowledge
of
the time and position for his lunar-distance observation (if he did, why
would he be bothering with lunars?). Instead, he can only make an
informed
guess at these quantities at the moment of his lunar measurement. If he
then works his lunar, calculating the altitudes on that basis, he should
arrive at a more precise value for the time. Based on that time he can
make
a better estimate of his position. With those new values he can repeat
the
calculation. And so on.

If the result of a lunar measurement depended only slightly on the
altitudes, then an initial rough guess would suffice for the GMT and the
position, which would then allow more accurate values to be obtained
from
the lunar. But because the correction to a lunar as a result of Moon
parallax can be so great in certain circumstances, the convergence of
such
a process may be very slow, and many iterations may be needed before a
precise result is obtained for GMT.

I am grateful to Bruce for copying his observations to us, and will use
them to illustrate this point: just his first set-of-five lunar
distances.

His GPS position is N44*00.9, W123*04.1

Corrected for index error, lunar distances average 35*34.0 at a GMT of
04:45:38 on 26 March 02.

At that moment, from that position, if the altitude of the Moon had been
observed it would have been 57*07.6, according to calculations from the
almanac, and Pollux would have been 69* 46.9. (these values weren't
given
by Bruce, they are my workings)

Cleared lunar distance is 35*24.4 or 35.4067*

At 04:00 GMT the calculated lunar distance was 34*56.4 or 34.9400*
At 05:00 GMT the calculated lunar distance was 35*33.5 or 35.5583*

By linear interpolation, this gives a GMT for the lunar distance
observations as 04:45:17, just 21 sec slow of GPS: a remarkably good
result. My answers may diverge slightly from Bruce's as a result of a
different calculation method, but effectively we agree.

All I have done so far is to restate Bruce's first set of results.

But now, take those same observations, and pretend that they were timed
with a clock with an error, instead of by GPS. Let us presume that in
fact
that clock was 30 minutes fast on GPS, although this was not known to
the
observer.

His observations of lunar distance would be exactly the same averaging
39*34.0, but the indicated time would now be 30 min ahead, at 05:15:38
by
that clock.

The navigator now has to use that time (he knows no other) to compute
the
altitudes of the Moon at 59*51.1 and of Pollux at 65*38.6. Note how much
these differ from the altitudes calculated earlier, because of the
half-hour time difference.

Cleared lunar distance is now 35*29.3 or 35.488*

The calculated lunar distances at 04:00 and 05:00 are just the same as
before, unaffected by our clock error.

Linear interpolation now gives a GMT for the lunar distance measurement
at
04:53:12., which is 7 min 34 sec ahead of GMT. What we can say is that
an
initial error in timimg of 30 minutes has resulted in a time error of 7
min
34 sec, which is about a quarter of the initial value. Other geometries
of
Moon and other-body in the sky will result in a different ratio, which
is
hard to predict, but even in the worst-case I don't think this factor
can
exceed one-half.

We could use our result to correct the clock, which would reduce its
error,
but it would still be out by 7 min 34 sec, though the navigator would
not
be aware of that figure. With this new time, the altitudes can be
recalculated, and the whole process can be reiterated, which would
again,
presumably, reduce the error by another factor of 4, to just less than
two
minutes. Next time, half a minute. The navigator will be aware of these
steps getting smaller each time, which would advise him when to bring
the
proceedings to a halt.

It's clear that this long-winded reiteration process does not lend
itself
to hand-calculation, though a computer would do it in a twinkle.

If anyone (and here I am thinking particularly of Bruce Stark) can
suggest
a way around this problem, I would be pleased to hear about it.
Otherwise,
lunar navigators should avoid calculating their altitudes and stick to
measuring them, unless they have the resources of a computer behind
them.

George Huxtable.

------------------------------

george---.u-net.com
George Huxtable, 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
Tel. 01865 820222 or (int.) +44 1865 820222.
------------------------------

```
Browse Files

Drop Files

### 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)