NavList:

   

Reply

In [8767], Douglas Denny describes one of his sextants, in a way that 
puzzles me a bit-

"My Hughes sextant - beautifuly built, brass frame, with platinum divided 
scale,  with drum/worm drive has a vernier to measure to 10 seconds of arc 
but the certificate indicates accuracy of max error of 1 minute 30 seconds 
at points on the scale."

His reference to a "platinum divided scale" implied to me that it was a 
Vernier sextant; but then the word "drum" goes with micrometer sextants 
(which sometimes have their own little Vernier for interpolating between 
drum divisions). My guess is that he has a Vernier instrument with a Hughes 
patent endless-tangent knob, but not a micrometer drum (I've never come 
across the two combined, but it might be possible). If it's a Vernier 
instrument, divided to 10", then judging by my own such sextant, I would 
expect the scale to be readable, reliably, to well within 20",  but without 
being certain to 10".

Douglas defends his earlier claim-

"Attempting to use star separations to try to determine scale accuracy for 
example would not be possible due to the variables in the measurements 
themselves - including the refraction component even if calculated.
Also, combining of two stars overlapping, with the inevitable abberrations 
seen in the telscope image itself preclude this to being within one minute 
at best.
Also, the measurement can only be done to an accuracy of the divisions of 
the sextant which in most cases is one minute of arc. "

Frank Reed and I often differ about questions of precision, but in this case 
I would endorse all that he has said (and also on another matter, of the 
effect of a telescope on brightness, but that's for another posting). 
Douglas has got a lot wrong, in my view.

Right from my schooldays many years ago in a science lab, it became clear 
that if markings on a scale were sharp and clear, and were far enough apart 
that eye-resolution wasn't a problem, and any movements were smooth and 
reproducible (all of which apply to the drum reading of a good sextant) then 
anyone could interpolate between them, just by eye, to fifths, and a careful 
worker, with a bit of skill and practice, to tenths. A vernier helps a bit, 
but isn't necessary.

Douglas writes- "If accuracy is required, the measurements are difficult to 
achieve in the first place unless the sextant is clamped.".  It's true that 
measuring star-star separations is difficult, requiring a steady hand and a 
sharp eye. At my age, I have neither, sufficiently. One difficulty is in 
identifying the correct star-pair, as one star looks much like another. And 
having done so, superimposing star images is rather tricky, that's true. But 
you don't have to superimpose them, you can brush one past another, to put 
them just side by side, and cross them over (tricks of the trade).

Because of the stars' motion across the sky, clamping a sextant can be 
counterproductive, and gets in the way of such sweeping-past. An equatorial 
mounting on a pillar stand, as some land geographers used in the days of 
lunar longitudes, would work better. But the genius of the sextant is that 
the sextant itself doesn't need to be aligned with anything, as long as both 
objects can be got into view. To my mind, Douglas is overstating the 
difficulties in such on-land observations, although skill is certainly 
called for. Remember, generations of mariners found their longitudes from 
lunar distances, from a vessel at sea, with a rolling deck underfoot, aiming 
at angular precisions of less than a minute. By comparison, measurement from 
on-land is a doddle.

It surprises me that an optics professional brings in "the inevitable 
abberrations seen in the telscope image itself". Yes, of course, all 
telescopes suffer from aberrations, which degrade the image of a 
point-source star to some extent, ending up with a resolved image disc of 
finite size. But those aberrations affect both star images exactly the same; 
they don't cause any shift between one and another. Then the eye has to 
distinguish the shift of one such disc with respect to another. Is Douglas 
really claiming that the eye can't detect such a shift of less than 1', when 
using, say, a 6x scope? In which case, what sort of resolving power does he 
expect that telescope to have?

About refraction, Douglas complains-
"and you are suggesting it is OK to measure two stars where the refraction 
error alone can be greater than the measurement."

No problem about that, none at all, if the refraction is predictable. And, 
as long as the lower few-degrees of altitude are avoided, it is VERY 
precisely predictable, which is what makes precision astronomy possible.

As he states, the effect of refraction at an altitude of 40� is of the order 
of 1'. If no correction were made for meteorology, even in extreme 
depressions that wouldn't vary by more than 0.1'. And if only roughly 
corrected for local temperature and pressure, no more than .01' variation 
would remain. Would that satisfy Douglas Denny? Far from being "unknown 
effects" of barometric pressure, the effects are precisely known and easy to 
measure and correct for. The effects of humidity are quite negligible, as 
Frank has pointed out..

Low altitudes should certainly be avoided for this purpose, but there's no 
need whatsoever to use low altitudes.

George.

contact George Huxtable, at  george@hux.me.uk
or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK. 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply