NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: On measuring the (lunar) distance
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2002 Mar 23, 01:10 +0000
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2002 Mar 23, 01:10 +0000
Bruce Stark wrote- >George has pointed out that a phenomena he's >discovered and given the name "Parallactic retardation" makes the measurement >twice as critical if the moon is near the meridian. ===================== Reply from George- Well, I don't claim to have "discovered" the effect, as it's been referred to in a text over 100 years ago, though in German. The effect seems to be little-known in the English-speaking community of navigators, though it has big implications. It was a great surprise to me, as well as to Bruce. It's not quite like Bruce states, though. The Moon needs to be high in the sky, not near the meridian, for the effect to be important. I wonder whether you all agree that "parallactic retardation" is a horrible-sounding expression: perhaps someone can suggest a more euphonious one. I can only defer to Bruce's comments about observing techniques. Clearly he has a lot more experience in these matters than I do. I don't claim to be much of a lunar observer at all, just someone who has taken an interest in how the thing works. Taking a good lunar, especially in a sea, must have been the ultimate test of an observer's skill and judgment. Our newbies at the game should not expect to reach that standard without a lot of practice. The observational task of taking a good lunar was matched by the mathematical task of working out the answer. I agree with Bruce that only one altitude of each body is needed before and after the lunar measurements. The best order of doing the job seems to me to be- 1. Altitude of Sun or other body (because it matters least). 2. Altitude of Moon. 3. Several lunars in quick succession. 4. Altitude of Moon. 5. Altitude of Sun or other body. This keeps the sequence symmetrical in time, and keeps together in time the measurements that depend most on time. The aim should be for the mean time of the two Moon altitudes to be about the same (to within a minute) as the mean time of the lunar distances. The timing of the altitudes of the Sun (or other body) matters little. If you find, after taking the observations, that there's a significant difference between the mean time of taking the two Moon altitudes and the mean time of taking the lunars, then you can interpolate between the values of the Moon altitudes rather than simply averaging them. I suggest this is done best with a simple graph. To me, it's most satisfying to see the group of lunatics collaborating together and converging on an answer to Chuck's observation. If anyone needs another exercise to get their teeth into, there's Steven Wepster's Mars lunar taken at sea last year. Details can be dound in "About lunars", toward the end of part 2. I have had no reports that any listmember has tackled that exercise. If anyone has, it would be interesting to learn how they succeeded. George Huxtable. ------------------------------ george@huxtable.u-net.com George Huxtable, 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK. Tel. 01865 820222 or (int.) +44 1865 820222. ------------------------------