NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Old style lunar
From: Ken Muldrew
Date: 2004 Dec 10, 15:44 -0700
From: Ken Muldrew
Date: 2004 Dec 10, 15:44 -0700
On 10 Dec 2004 at 15:45, Fred Hebard wrote: > On Dec 10, 2004, at 3:36 PM, Frank Reed wrote: > > > Fred H wrote: > > "At this point, it does not appear that they account for much of the > > variation." > > > > But how did you reach this conclusion, Fred? Have you looked at the > > almanac inaccuracies for 1800? > > Fair point Frank. Most of your samples were in error in the range of > 0.1' of arc. I was extrapolating from that. But it's speculation. Below are the errors in the almanac lunar distances for October 1800 at noon (astronomical time). The table gives the date, the error for stars East of the moon (the value from the nautical almanac is subtracted from the value in Frank's online almanac, given in seconds), and the error for stars West of the moon. I haven't done this for the other 7 values given for each date. 1 37 2 38 -55 3 40 -58 4 39 -45 5 41 -39 6 12 -53 7 15 -48 8 34 -49 9 34 -49 10 33 -45 11 40 -45 12 35 -41 13 32 -37 14 24 7 15 15 14 16 -6 17 18 19 20 44 21 48 -33 22 45 -30 23 40 -23 24 40 -19 25 28 -21 26 34 -27 27 39 -33 28 42 -39 29 42 -56 30 40 543 31 39 -43 The large error on the 30th is real. The almanac gives 71?20'16" while the modern value is 71?29'19". The "0" was probably meant to be an "8". Presumably the error bounces around a bit more over the year (or else they would have noticed pretty quickly), but the magnitude is enough to explain longitudes with +/- 1/2 a degree. Ken Muldrew.