NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: How did Sumner navigate in 1837?
From: Jim Thompson
Date: 2003 May 14, 07:53 -0300
From: Jim Thompson
Date: 2003 May 14, 07:53 -0300
> -----Original Message----- > From: Navigation Mailing List > [mailto:NAVIGATION-L@LISTSERV.WEBKAHUNA.COM]On Behalf Of Herbert Prinz > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:37 AM > To: NAVIGATION-L@LISTSERV.WEBKAHUNA.COM > Subject: Re: How did Sumner navigate in 1837? > > Jim Thompson wrote: > > > 2. Was the celestial LOP completely unknown in 1837, or were > academicians > > aware of the concept, but nobody had been able to > operationalize it at sea? > Herbert Prinz replied: > Globes had been used since the 16th century for the graphical solution of > astronomical problems. They had to be rather large to be useful and were > impractical at sea. > > > 3. Exactly how would he [Sumner] have determined his longitude in 1837? > > By chronometer and time sight, using one of the methods given in > a contemporary > Bowditch (preferring No.3 over No.1, passing over No.2). > > > 4. How aware were navigators in his day that their longitude > calculation was > > dependant on latitude? They must have been. It must have been > part of the > > sight reduction? > > Not every longitude calculation is dependent on latitude. For example, the > "method by equal altitude" isn't - well, at least not to an > extend where an > error of 1 deg of latitude would matter. But with most commonly practised > methods there was indeed such a dependency and navigators were > well aware of it. > > The problem was by no means new or unique to celestial navigation. Already > before the chronometer, dead reckoning was based on Traverse > Tables that kept > track of changes in latitude as well as meridian departures and > thus, longitude. > If possible, the Sun was observed at noon. This observation > overruled the DR > latitude. Now the the Traverse Table had to be adjusted so as to > reflect the new > latitude, thereby yielding a new DR longitude. J. H. Moore, for instance, > (Practical Navigator, 1800) has a whole chapter on this. Although > he claimed to > present to this end "the most rational methods", I can't help the > feeling that > this was an area where navigation had more to do with art (or > magic) then with > science. Some of the worked examples in Moore are charmingly > naive and quite > amusing to read. > > > Putting together some information on 18th century celestial > navigation from > > www.lunardistances.com, I assume that he [Sumner] probably had > done this: > > > > 1. Determined latitude by DR from his last fix, 900 NM to the > west, at 21 > > deg W longitude (he was now at 6 deg W). Is there no way he could have > > determined latitude from the sextant altitude of the sun and > his chronometer > > time? > > Only if he would have had his longitude in addition to Greenwich > Time, or local > apparent time instead of it. Neither is a realistic assumption. > > As Sumner himself stated convincingly, from one observation you > get exactly one > position line, no more, no less. If this position line happens to be > perpendicular to your meridian (it will be, if, and only if the > celestial body > is on it), then you happen to have got your latitude. > > > > > 2. Determined longtitude by using these known variables: DR > latitude, his > > chronometer GMT time, the altitude of the sun from his 1000 > shot, and tables > > showing declination of the sun. From those he could determine > local time, > > from which he could determine the difference in time between his local > > meridian and Greenwich. I still don't understand the steps he > used, but I > > think that's the basic process he would have used. Am I right? > > Yes, you are. > > > The critical point is that his longitude estimate was dependant on his > > latitude. He seemed to understand that, which is why he > reworked the 10 AM > > sight with two presumed latitudes. How common was that > practice in 1837? > > How common was it to do a time sight at all? And would not the > first person to > plot three lat/lon pairs have made Sumner's discovery? Herbert, thank you for confirming all this for me. Very informative. Is your question, "How common was it to do a time sight at all?" rhetorical? Do you have the impression that Sumner was unusual in doing his mid-morning time sight? > > If that old DR latitude was way off, then his longtitude was > too -- which > > was one of the points that navigators in those days might not have > > appreciated, because they did not commonly understand the concept of a > > celestial LOP.latitude. > > As I said before, I do think that navigators were aware that > wrong input lead to > wrong results. But before Sumner, an observation was either good > or bad, the > result right or wrong. By contrast, Sumner adopts a quantitative > approach to the > problem. He asks how much error one may expect under certain > given conditions. > In the treatise where he presents his new "Method by projection > on Mercator's > chart", he spends over 13 pages out of 90 on error analysis. He > even has it in > the title: > > "[...] First, The True Bearing of the Land; secondly, The Errors > of Longitude by > Chronometer, Consequent to Any Error in the Latitude; thirdly, > The Suns True > Azimuth.[...]" > > I believe he is the first one to undertake any serious attempt at > error analysis > in a work of navigation and is perhaps not sufficiently > appreciated for this by > historians. Later in the century this would become a big topic, > specially in > France. > > Herbert Prinz > >