NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Testing pocket sextant; Hamburg shops etc.
From: Alexandre Eremenko
Date: 2006 Jun 15, 02:50 -0400
From: Alexandre Eremenko
Date: 2006 Jun 15, 02:50 -0400
Dear Bill, > Understood. Still, assuming you are doing things correctly and the > instrument isn't at fault, about the only thing that could throw a beach > shot off to that extent is dip. That's what I am inclined to believe too. There was strong glare of the sea under the Sun. Having no horizon filter, I could misjudge what the real horizon was. Two observations using the shoreline seem to confirm this. But still, taking the shoreline instead of the horizon, I would expect an OVERSHOT rather than and UNDERSHOT. Yesterday I made a tour of Hamburg shops. There are many interesting things there. For the first time I could handle a real reflection circle (German, by Pistor and Martens, late XIX century). Unfortunately , German antique dealers heavily polish all sextants before they go on display. So practically on all of them the silver scale becomes unreadable:-( The prices are enormous. A pocket sextant of the type I have by Troughton and Simms costs 900 Euros. (I bought my one for $200 on e-bay). An average early XX century sextant is about 1000 EU (polished and thus unusable). An early XIX century chronometer is 4000 EU, working. A real XIX century backstaff (all of wood, a really rare thing) goes for 5000 EU. Same for a "boat mortar" of the type described in Forester's "Admiral Hornblower in the W Indies". (I suppose transportation of this mortar overseas would cost about the same. See Forester's beautiful description of transportation of such mortar few miles up a river:-) Also found a place where they resilver mirrors and test sextants. Of the modern sextants have seen only Freibergers, at 1200 EU full size, and 700 Euros "yacht". > The upshot was that Frank was using the height of Chicago Buildings (and > there differences) to calculate distance. His calculations did not match > actual measurements. > Possible reasons included the refraction index(s) used > in Bowditch formulas and hefty anomalous dip (thermal inversions). He probably measured their height above the lake level. While actually they are not standing on the lake level, and I don't see how one can measure the actual height of the building from the ground level from a distance. > "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.)" Have you seen the paper? Is it available on the web? Alex.