NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: The *&^%$#@ Moon
From: Clive Sutherland
Date: 2006 Aug 18, 17:21 -0500
George ;
I do not know why you did not get my mail [ NavList1082 ]. I also had
problems, I did not get 1078 to1081 but found them in my deleted Items
folder after your call.
This is my message 1082 which I am resending via NavList in case anyone else
missed it.
Clive.
>My Reply to Robert Eno [1077] originally sent at 11:35 this morning, with
>apologies to the group.>
>Bob;
As a first step you need to distinguish between faulty Observations and
faulty Calculations.
Take about 10 or more sights of the moon as close together as possible in
time and to plot the result. If this plot is a straight line, you could
compare the slope of the plot with the rate of change of the Moons altitude.
If this is OK and the statistics give a reasonably precise set then the
fault is not with the observation and you need to examine the Procedure, the
Data or the Maths of the calculation. Examine your procedure to see if the
average of the Time set really corresponds with the average of the Altitude
set, if you use this method.
By using a computer program such as Excel you could reduce every sight
individually to an intercept and analyse the spread of the values you get.
If they are not all exactly the same then how wide is the scatter compared
with you star sights.
Could the corrections from the almanac have been applied in the wrong order?
If all is copacetic<G>, then the explanation eventually may be with amount
of Augmentation or Irradiation experienced both of which are controversial
subjects, and have been discussed before on this list. I do not know of any
physical reason that clouds would affect the measured altitude.This can be
easily checked by comparing the view of the moon through cloud patches with
the view against clear sky.
Ice blink might affect the horizon or the actual value of dip might be
suspect,especially at high latitudes.
Clive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Huxtable" <george@huxtable.u-net.com>
To: <NavList@fer3.com>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 7:17 PM
Subject: [NavList 1084] Re: The *&^%$#@ Moon
>
> Lars Bergman wrote-.....................................................
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
From: Clive Sutherland
Date: 2006 Aug 18, 17:21 -0500
George ;
I do not know why you did not get my mail [ NavList1082 ]. I also had
problems, I did not get 1078 to1081 but found them in my deleted Items
folder after your call.
This is my message 1082 which I am resending via NavList in case anyone else
missed it.
Clive.
>My Reply to Robert Eno [1077] originally sent at 11:35 this morning, with
>apologies to the group.>
>Bob;
As a first step you need to distinguish between faulty Observations and
faulty Calculations.
Take about 10 or more sights of the moon as close together as possible in
time and to plot the result. If this plot is a straight line, you could
compare the slope of the plot with the rate of change of the Moons altitude.
If this is OK and the statistics give a reasonably precise set then the
fault is not with the observation and you need to examine the Procedure, the
Data or the Maths of the calculation. Examine your procedure to see if the
average of the Time set really corresponds with the average of the Altitude
set, if you use this method.
By using a computer program such as Excel you could reduce every sight
individually to an intercept and analyse the spread of the values you get.
If they are not all exactly the same then how wide is the scatter compared
with you star sights.
Could the corrections from the almanac have been applied in the wrong order?
If all is copacetic<G>, then the explanation eventually may be with amount
of Augmentation or Irradiation experienced both of which are controversial
subjects, and have been discussed before on this list. I do not know of any
physical reason that clouds would affect the measured altitude.This can be
easily checked by comparing the view of the moon through cloud patches with
the view against clear sky.
Ice blink might affect the horizon or the actual value of dip might be
suspect,especially at high latitudes.
Clive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Huxtable" <george@huxtable.u-net.com>
To: <NavList@fer3.com>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 7:17 PM
Subject: [NavList 1084] Re: The *&^%$#@ Moon
>
> Lars Bergman wrote-.....................................................
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
