NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Question to Frank
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2005 Apr 22, 21:27 EDT
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2005 Apr 22, 21:27 EDT
Ken M wrote:
"In fact this was the preferred method for land-based lunars. Take
the
lunar distance and then take a time sight using a star in the East or West
rather than using the altitudes of the moon and other body in lieu of the
time sight. Whether this preference was due to the fact that an artificial
horizon limits you to altitudes below 60° or that you get a better time
sight using a rising or setting star I just don't know (or perhaps there
is some other factor that I haven't thought of)."
lunar distance and then take a time sight using a star in the East or West
rather than using the altitudes of the moon and other body in lieu of the
time sight. Whether this preference was due to the fact that an artificial
horizon limits you to altitudes below 60° or that you get a better time
sight using a rising or setting star I just don't know (or perhaps there
is some other factor that I haven't thought of)."
In all, to analyze a lunar, an observer working alone might want to shoot
as many as six altitudes in addition to the lunar distance itself. Two of them
would be time sights for determining local time (I say "two" because a careful
observer might want to rate his watch and may thus want to do a time
sight before the actual lunar observations and another after but if you have a
decent watch or the time sight is reasonably close to the lunar observation, one
is sufficient). Also we need the altitudes of the Moon and the other body used
in the lunar observation in order to clear it. If I'm working alone and can't
get the altitudes simultaneous with the lunar distance, I'll need to shoot an
altitude of each object before the lunar distance(s) and and I'll need to shoot
the altitudes after the distance(s). Of course, if the other body is reasonably
far away from the meridian, we can use its altitude for the time sight
observations so that could reduce the number of altitudes required to four. And
if I have an assistant who can shoot the altitudes simultaneous with my
distance, I can reduce the number of altitudes required to two (per distance).
On the other hand, if I skip measuring the altitudes at the time of the lunar
and calculate those altitudes based on my DR position, I still have to measure
at least one altitude to get local time. So, let's see then, the minimum number
of altitudes I have to shoot is one --and not necessarily while I'm shooting the
lunar, possibly hours earlier or later-- and a "prudent" maximum number could be
as high six (ignoring backups, double-check sights, etc.).
The preference for calculating the altitudes of the Moon and other body at
the time of the lunar observation seems to have been largely a matter of
subjective personal opinion and experience. But there is also an
objective question of efficiency. When labor is cheap and rapid updating of
the longitude is important as was the case aboard many old sailing vessels,
it made sense to shoot the altitudes. Then the longitude could be worked up in
twenty minutes. When labor was expensive and the longitude was not required
immediately as in land survey, mapping, and exploration, it made more sense to
calculate the altitudes. But it might take an hour to get the final
longitude.
-FER
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N 72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N 72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars