Check out the bookstore at IRBS.com
| Home | Mailing Lists | Bookstore | Weather | Tide Predictions | Bowditch |

Re: Thomas Jefferson and Lunar Obs.

From: Frank R (no email)
Date: Fri Apr 08 2005 - 18:10:44 EDT

  • Next message: Frank R: "Re: Age: is it relevant?"

    George H wrote:
    "I don't recall seeing any accounts of travellers being assisted by the
    observatory after their return, to correct lunar-based or Jupiter-based
    longitudes for errors in prediction. That's not to say it didn't happen,
    and I would welcome any references to it, if it did."

    Remember, a few weeks ago, George, when Matthew Flinders' cat came up in
    discussion??
    I followed up with his words on this very topic of correcting observed lunar
    longitudes with Greenwich observations... You even commented on the post as
    follows:
    "Frank's quote from Flinders about after-the-event correction of longitudes
    is indeed of great interest."

    But to save looking through the archives, here's the relevant passage again:
    "The publication in 1814 of a voyage commenced in 1801, and of which all
    the essential parts were concluded within three years, requires some
    explanation. Shipwreck and a long imprisonment prevented my arrival in
    England until
    the latter end of 1810; much had then been done to forward the account, and
    the charts in particular were nearly prepared for the engraver; but it was
    desirable that the astronomical observations, upon which so much depended,
    should undergo a recalculation, and the lunar distances have the advantage
    of
    being compared with the observations made at the same time at Greenwich; and
    in
    July 1811 the necessary authority was obtained from the Board of Longitude.
    A
    considerable delay hence arose, and it was prolonged by the Greenwich
    observations being found to differ so much from the calculated places of the
    sun and
    moon, given in the Nautical Almanacks of 1801, 2 and 3, as to make
    considerable alterations in the longitudes of places settled during the
    voyage; and a
    reconstruction of all the charts becoming hence indispensable to accuracy, I
    wished also to employ in it corrections of another kind, which before had
    been
    adopted only in some particular instances."
    --Matthew Flinders, 1814.

    Note that Flinders was correcting observations taken just a few years before
    the Lewis & Clark expedition.

    And George wrote:
    "One difficulty arises from the English weather. Not only did the sky have
    to provide a clear view of the Moon, at the moment of local transit for the
    traveller, but to obtain a time correction from Greenwich, the sky would
    also have to be clear, at the moment of that transit, at the observatory."

    The discrepancy between the almanac data and the Moon's actual position
    appears to be rather slowly changing, over the course of a few days, so one
    observatory would probably suffice. Of course, you could always build two. The
    instruments required are specialized, but not impossibly expensive even for the
    young USA.

    And wrote:
    "Another difficulty arises from international politics of the time. Would
    American travellers, departing in 1803, be able to rely with confidence on
    future cooperation from the British Commissioners of Longitude?"

    I agree. It would have been reckless to depend on the political situation
    hence a local US observatory would have been much better. William Dunbar
    himself had a nice observatory down among the bayous of Louisiana back then.

    And:
    "I understand that available in America at that time was a local edition of
    the Nautical Almanac, and I would be interested to learn whether this was
    produced by agreement with the Board of Longitude, or whether it was a
    pirated copy."

    There were several by Blunt, Garnett, Patten published in America between
    about 1802 and 1855 (the latter date is when the "American Nautical Almanac"
    became available, as a subset of the "American Ephemeris & Nautical Almanac").
    I've never seen the early American re-publications refered to as pirated in
    the same sense that Moore had been pirated by Blunt, for example. It does not
    appear that the UK Board of Longitude claimed any form of copyright over the
    data in the Nautical Almanac despite the fact that the data could potentially
    be used by an enemy. It would have been difficult to sustain international
    cooperation over the development of the science of navigation if the results
    were treated as proprietary.

    -FER
    _www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars_ (http://www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars)


  • Next message: Frank R: "Re: Age: is it relevant?"



    | Home | Mailing Lists | Bookstore | Weather | Tide Predictions | Bowditch | Trawlerworld |