NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Table A4 + elevation?
From: Trevor Kenchington
Date: 2003 May 3, 14:52 -0300
From: Trevor Kenchington
Date: 2003 May 3, 14:52 -0300
Thanks George! That was obvious once you pointed it out and so provoked me to write out the equations. You wrote: > For all angles of altitude except very low ones, it's a VERY good > approximation to treat refraction of light in the atmosphere as though the > earth's surface were flat, as are any boundaries or contours of pressure or > temperature in the air above it. I don't think that it is necessary to assume a flat Earth. The only assumption that (I think) is needed is that all layers in the atmosphere have plane boundaries with all of the planes parallel. Given that, the refractive index of each intermediate layer cancels out of the equations, leaving only the refractive index for space (unity, as you noted) and that immediately around the observer's sextant. The assumption of parallel layering would, as you say, become an issue with light rays nearly tangential to the Earth's surface. It might sometimes fail when viewing objects through a weather front too, though cloud cover will then usually obscure astronomic bodies anyway. Otherwise, there are local instabilities which astronomers trouble over in terms of the "seeing" conditions at a particular time but the resulting perturbations are (always?) too small to be of navigational concern. > In the plane-parallel case, however, Snell's law applies, and then the > overall bending of light, from its original direction, as it reaches the > observer, is determined ONLY by the angle of incidence and the difference > between the refractive index as it comes into the atmosphere (which is > exactly 1, for free space) and the local refractive index at the level of > the observer. It doesn't matter a damn what happens in-between, or where it > happens. The index in-between may vary up or down, different layers can be > thick or thin, but nevertheless the total overall bending will be exactly > the same. Surprising but true (well, it surprised me, at first). It shouldn't be surprising. We are all familiar with the same phenomenon when looking through window glass: Objects seen through a quality glass pane appear to be displaced fractionally sideways by the refraction of light as it passes into and out of the glass but the angle at which those rays reach our eye is not affected by their passage through the window pane -- and would not be whether the pane was made of low-density acrylic or high-density lead crystal glass. Use the same glass to make the face-plate of a SCUBA diver's mask and refraction between the water outside and the air inside the mask has a substantial effect on vision but the thickness (for practical purposes) and the refractive index of the face-plate are of no consequence. Only if the faces of the various layers (of glass or air) are either curved or non-parallel is there any effect on the angle at which the light reaches our eyes. Sorry for not figuring that one out without the prompting! Trevor Kenchington -- Trevor J. Kenchington PhD Gadus@iStar.ca Gadus Associates, Office(902) 889-9250 R.R.#1, Musquodoboit Harbour, Fax (902) 889-9251 Nova Scotia B0J 2L0, CANADA Home (902) 889-3555 Science Serving the Fisheries http://home.istar.ca/~gadus