NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: accuracy of glass artificial horizon figure
From: Bill Morris
Date: 2008 Aug 21, 20:04 -0700
From: Bill Morris
Date: 2008 Aug 21, 20:04 -0700
You need only one level if there are three levelling feet to your mirror. First set it parallel to a line joining two feet and level. Then set it at right angles to that line and use the third foot to level up. Recheck the first pair and so on. A little while ago, I constructed an artificial horizon out of 6 mm float mirror glass. It sits in a backed hardwood frame upon a bed of thin felt and is held down at three points by springy bits of brass. At these points, levelling screws pass through threaded bushes in the frame to a thick wooden sub-base. The levelling screws end in ball bearings. One of them sits on a plane , one in a conical depression and one in a vee groove machined in bits of brass let into the sub=frame. The whole sits firmly bolted to a surveyor's tripod. The level tube is home-made with the interior ground to give a sensitivity of 30 seconds per 2.5 mm division. The brass end-caps have two lapped flats on them, so the whole sits flat and is of minimum weight. Grinding a level tube requires surprisingly little equipment and just a little bit of olde craft knowledge. How does it perform? Well, my excuse is that the weather has been terrible lately and I haven't got a round tuit. If I knew how to attach a photograph to this, I would gladly do so. Bill Morris On Aug 22, 10:56�am, Bruce Hamiltonwrote: > George: > I clipped the information below from an online tool catalogue. �How little money would I have to spend to buy two levels accurate enough to calibrate a glass sheet (or mirror) horizon? > > Horizontal-Mount Levels > N �5/8" Dia. x 3 3/4" Lg.0.001520 sec./2mm0.228"Brass (Black Finish)2160A5$76.30 > > N �5/8" Dia. x 3 3/4" Lg.0.0051 min./2mm0.228"Brass (Black Finish)2160A763.04 > > N �5/8" Dia. x 4 13/16" Lg.0.0072 min./0.1"0.196"Chrome-Plated Brass2160A196.98 > > P �13/16" Dia. x 6 3/8" Lg.0.00036 sec./2mm0.375"Brass (Black Finish)2160A2171.20 > > Q 2 15/16" Lg. x �9/16" Wd. x �9/16" Ht.0.03315 min./0.050"0.156"Aluminum2160A327.80 > > Q 2 15/16" Lg. x �9/16" Wd. x �9/16" Ht.0.03315 min./0.1"0.156"Polycarbonate (Black)2160A410.30 > > Q 2 15/16" Lg. x �9/16" Wd. x �9/16" Ht.0.12245 min./0.1"0.156"Polycarbonate (Black)2160A9*��9.50 > > Q 2 31/32" Lg. x �9/16" Wd. x �37/64" Ht.0.12245 min./0.050"0.156"Polycarbonate (Black)3329A46 10.30 > > R 2 5/32" Lg. x �29/64" Wd. x �21/64" Ht.0.1851 sec./0.1"0.079"Brass (Black Finish)2160A3611.95 > > R 2 5/32" Lg. x �29/64" Wd. x �21/64" Ht.0.1851 sec./0.1"0.079"Brass (Chrome Finish)2160A3711.95 > > R 2 1/2" Lg. x �1/2" Wd. x �5/8" Ht.0.0051 min./2mm0.125"Brass (Black Finish)2160A1177.20 > > R 3 23/64" Lg. x �5/8" Wd. x �3/4" Ht.0.0051 min./2mm0.125"Brass (Black Finish)2160A672.92 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: George Huxtable > Date: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:51 pm > Subject: [NavList 6181] Re: accuracy of glass artificial horizon figure > To: NavList@fer3.com > > > Gary LaPook wrote- > > | > > | Well, the ultimate limit is the 1/8th wavelength of light "Raleigh > > | limit" since anything more perfect is not detectable due to > > the wave > > | character of light. This is the standard for telescope > > mirrors. But, > > | since you will not be trying see the moons of Saturn when > > doing celnav, > > | the artificial horizon doesn't need to be that perfect. Since > > the angle > > | of incidence equals the angle or reflection any error in the > > shape of > > | the mirror is doubled in the reflected ray. So, the answer to your > > | question is that it must be accurate to 1/2 the accuracy limit > > you are > > | trying to achieve. If you only want sight accurate to one > > minute of arc > > | then the mirror must be accurate to 1/2 of a minute. If > > working for one > > | tenth of a minute accuracy then the mirror must be accurate to one > > | twentieth of a minute. > > | > > | gl > > | > > | pls wrote: > > | > Does anyone know how accurate (i.e., level) the surface > > figure of a > > | > sheet of black glass must be to serve as an artificial > > horizon? �In > > | > particular I am trying to determine the point beyond which > > additional| > accuracy is irrelevant in terms of the result, > > given the other > > | > variables in a sighting with a hand-held sextant. > > ====================== > > > I wonder whether Gary has that right, or if he is a factor of 2 out? > > > Yes, if the mirror angle is half a minute out, then the angle > > between the > > incident and reflected light becomes a whole minute out. But > > then, to arrive > > at a measured altitude, you have to divide that resulting angle > > by two. So I > > suggest that, if there were no other sources of error, the > > accuracy in > > measuring altitude will be no better than the accuracy achieved > > in levelling > > the mirror, and there is no such factor-of-two to apply. > > > Maybe "pls" is concentrating on the wrong question. "Surface > > figure" refers > > to flatness, in a plane, not level-ness. The difficult bit is > > not getting > > the surface figure of the glass right; any decent glass flat > > will be good > > enough. It's getting a sufficiently rigid mounting, that can be > > finely > > adjusted, and tried with sufficiently sensitive levels, so that > > it can be > > got level, and will stay level, throughout a measurement. It > > calls for a > > sensitive spirit-level that's sufficiently light in weight so > > that its > > weight shifting on the glass causes negligible deflection. It > > requires firm > > ground so that no observable shift occurs as the observer moves > > his weight > > around. > > > If these requirements can be met (and they can be bypassed, in > > the right > > conditions, by using a mercury reflecting surface) then > > altitudes can be > > measured with much greater accuracy than is possible at sea > > using a natural > > horizon. Besides the factor of two reduction in instrument > > errors caused by > > the doubling of the measured angle, and the firm footing on land > > compared > > with a vessel, all the problems inherent in the natural horizon > > disappear, > > particularly the unpredictable refractive component of the dip. > > As long as > > the observed body, preferably a star, isn't too low down (but it > > can't be > > above 60�, of course), then I would expect altitudes to be > > measurable, with > > care, to around 0.3 arc-minutes, or so, as long as the glass > > plate can be > > levelled with corresponding accuracy. And that becomes the > > difficult bit. > > > George. > > > contact George Huxtable at geo...@huxtable.u-net.com > > or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222) > > or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc To post, email NavList@fer3.com To , email NavList-@fer3.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---