NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Anomalous dip. was: [NAV-L] Testing pocket sextant.
From: Alexandre Eremenko
Date: 2006 Jun 16, 01:16 -0400
From: Alexandre Eremenko
Date: 2006 Jun 16, 01:16 -0400
Dear George, Thank you for your interesting letter. Indeed the sign and magnitude of the error I observed look like an error produced by "positive dip". But I suppose that the physical conditions you are talking about were not present in Kielerforde on that day. The water was very cool (and always is) here. I mean most people do not dare to swim in Kiel till the beginning of August:-) But the air was hot, at least that was what I felt:-) So I suppose the gradient of temperature could not be "inverted" on that day, that is the air was cooler near the water and hotter above. As I understand from your message this is the "normal gradient", not inverted. The dip correction was taken from the almanach tables, and it was -2.2, -2.8 and -3.5 at the three places of various elevation where the observations were made. The observations on the highest place were such as if there was no dip. So I am looking for another explanation. I thought of filters prismaticity (which I cannot estimate at this moment) but it is unlikely that a manufacturer of good reputation would have 3.5' of filter prismaticity:-) The index glass might be not perpendicular by a large amount and I don't know how to test this. Or the teeth on the arc can be dirty, and I cannot clean them, because the pocket sextant has to be disassembled for this, and I do not have a proper screwdriver for this. Anyway, I hope that the weather will permit me to do further testing on my sailing trip. Alex On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, George Huxtable wrote: > > Alex mentioned the paper I recommended- > > > "I've just received an offprint of a new article by Andrew T Young, > of > | > the Astronomy Deparment, San Diego State University, > "Understanding > | > Astronomical Refraction", which has recently appeared in the > journal > | > "The Observatory"(Vol. 126, no. 1191, pp. 82-115, 2006 April.)" > > and asked- > | Have you seen the paper? Is it available on the web? > > Yes, I've kindly been sent a reprint. I must be on his refraction > mailing-list, having discussed a lot of details about refraction with > him in the past. I don't know whether it's on the web. I can no longer > find Andy Young's email address at SDSU, but you could try asking > them. I have always found him to be a most helpful character. > > In my opinion, his paper is the sort of thing you might want to keep > in printed form, rather than as web ephemera, but I take a somewhat > old-fashioned attitude toward such things. I get the picture that to > some (here I exclude Alex) if it isn't available online then it > doesn't truly exist. > > Anyway, now I consider myself somewhat better informed by Andy's lucid > exposition, and can try to comment further about Alex's problems with > dip; if dip really is the underlying reason for his sextant > discrepancies. > > Imagine that in the Kielefjord, on the day Alex was observing, there > was a temperature inversion in the air over the surface of the water. > Here we are considering just the lower few feet, between the level of > the water surface and Alex's height of eye; probably just the lower > couple of metres, depending on Alex's height and how far up the beach > he was standing. If in that region the temperature gradient, with > increasing height, was as great as -0.115 degrees C per metre, that is > sufficient to bend light downwards, towards the water surface, so that > it's curvature exactly matches the curvature of the surface. In that > case, light would be "trapped" into following the water surface. In > that case the visible horizon, the boundary between sea and sky, would > appear to be exactly horizontal, no matter what your height of eye. So > the actual dip under thise conditions would not be the text-book value > that Alex took corresponding to his height of eye, but zero instead. > Wouldn't that, on its own, account for most of Alex's observed > discrepancy? If the gradient were higher still, that would give rise > to a reversed dip. > > Note that we are talking here about the temperature at the water > surface being only a quarter-degree or so cooler that it is at eye > level, which doesn't seem to be a great deal. However, that gradient > is a lot greater ( and in the opposite direction) than the value taken > for the Standard Atmosphere, which is only +.0065 degrees C per metre. > But there's nothing unphysical or unfeasible about a gradient of - > 0.115 degrees C per metre. If the air is cooler below, as it is in > such an inversion, then that is a stable state of affairs, and air > convection doesn't act to stir things up. So, according to Young, > there's no limit to the gradient in such inversions, and "... rates > exceeding a degree a meter are common. An inversion gradient of 20 > degrees per metre has been measured directly ..." > > So how can such a temperature inversion near sea-level come about? > Consider a land-mass near the water, such as happens in the Red Sea > (and the Keilefjord). The worst situation is apparently caused over > desert sand, and you can sea why. When the Sun shines directly on > sand, it can get so hot that it's painful to walk on, the reason being > that all those grains separated by air, just making point contact with > grains below, act as a good insulator, so heat can't conduct down into > the earth. The high local temperature, close to the surface, causes > the air layer in contct with it to be efficiently heated. Conversely, > at night, the surface of sand cools down very quickly. Black volcanic > sands would presumably absorb Sun energy even more effectively and > heat the air above them more. > > But it's not necessary to invoke desert sands. Any land surface will > heat more quickly in daytime, and cool more quickly at night, than the > local sea. In the sea, turbulence causes mixing between the upper > layers, making any water-mass an effective heat-sink, with a > temperature that changes little, and slowly. > > Now we have a picture, of air being warmed in the daytime over > adjacent land, then a light breeze carrying it or drifting it over the > surface of the cooler water, so that lower layers of the air, in > contact with that water, are somewhat cooler than the rest, and the > resulting temperature gradient gives rise to anomalous dip. Alex > reports his measurements as being in fine weather, daytime, taken over > a sea-body that's surrounded by land. That seems like perfect > conditions for upsetting the dip. The moral might be that sextant > observations should be taken, not near land, but out at sea, where > there's no local source of warm air. > > Does any of that seem plausible? Please note that I am no > atmospheric-scientist, but just doing my best to make a few logical > deductions from the evidence that Young has provided. > > George > > contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com > or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222) > or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK. >