NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Accuracy of Lewis and Clark Observations
From: Bruce Stark
Date: 2002 Aug 20, 10:58 EDT
From: Bruce Stark
Date: 2002 Aug 20, 10:58 EDT
Still more on George's August 2nd posting: The last part of it concerns Lewis and Clark's noon latitudes. Here is an excerpt: George: >What on earth is going on here? An on-land measurement of noon altitude using an artificial horizon was a standard technique for geographers, who would expect to achieve a precision of a minute or so. I find it hard to understand the earlier discrepancies of -5 and then +4 minutes, but the subsequent errors of -21 to -29 minutes are simply unbelievable! Does anyone have a clue about the origin of these huge discrepancies? Could it perhaps relate to refraction in the glass (or talc) wind-shield over the Mercury, if that's what was used? If Lewis and Clark's latitudes are so greatly in error, what hope is there of using such a faulty observation technique for lunar longitudes?< Me: George probably has answers to his questions by now, but since nothing has been said on the List, here are things to consider. First let's talk about the comparatively SMALL errors. The talc (isinglass) roof over the artificial horizon may have been part of the problem. I have no idea how they worked the talc. But with glass, getting the two surfaces of the sheet perfect and parallel to each other was not easy. The octant was wood, mortised and glued with what we'd call "biodegradable" glue. It seems reasonable to suppose it could have measured differently after weeks of hot, dry weather than it did after long periods of rain and humid weather, and perhaps a swim in the river with the other baggage. But I expect a large part of the problem was that the frame of the instrument was not always precisely in line with the sun's azimuth when the sun crossed the meridian. Large angles measure too great if the frame of the instrument is not parallel to the plane of the observation. That plane is formed by the observer, the sun, and the sun's reflection in the water. It's a vertical plane, of course, and bringing the sun and its reflection together puts the instrument in a vertical plane. But there are as many vertical planes as there are azimuths. The observation is in just one of them. The HUGE errors in latitude are a separate question. They probably came from the captains copying the instrument errors from one part of their journals to another. It was mentioned in data Professor Bergantino sent me a while back, but I must not have registered it. A bad number in the Journals was hardly a surprise. Later, working some observations taken in the Rocky Mountains, I ran aground on the problem. The altitude azimuths, worked as time sights, wouldn't agree with the equal altitudes. Fortunately, one of the equal altitudes was enough out of the prime vertical to be worth working for latitude. With the latitude found that way, things fell into place. Then I remembered, from the Bald-pated Prairie observations of the previous year, that the quadrant's back observation correction had been given to the fraction of a second of arc. Here it was to the whole minute. Digging back, I found that what was given as 2� 40' in this part of the Journal had once been 2� 11' 40.3". Reverting to the old correction produced a latitude close to the one I'd found the hard way. As George and other list members will know, the usual way of finding a quadrant's back observation error is to bring the sea horizon behind you to the sea horizon ahead of you. Correct for dip, and what's left over is index error. On land you could measure a long lunar if you knew your longitude or Greenwich time. Otherwise you'd have to measure between two stars, clear the measurement for refraction, and then calculate the true distance between the stars for comparison. Lewis and Clark were not familiar with such calculations. Had they chosen to, they might have gotten a fair idea by comparing back sight measurements to the same measurements made with the sextant. But I'm not sure they even bothered to check the sextant's index error. Bruce