Re: Sundial Info, and the Heinrich Harrer Sundial

2001-01-02 Thread The Shaws

Tony Moss wrote:-
snipHappy New True Millennium to you all snip

Just to keep the thing continuing for as long as possibe - if all this
millennium hype is to celebrate 2000 years since the birth of Christ - why
are we celebrating on the 1st January?  Shouldn't we celebrate the event on
25th December 2001

Mike Shaw

Wirral, UK
53' 22 N
03' 02 W


Re: Cast Away

2001-01-02 Thread Chris Lusby Taylor


 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  I saw Cast Away last week, and had a question about sundials and the 
  movie.
  After Tom Hanks has spent several years on a desolate island, he constructs
  an impressive analemma from a thin beam of light that enters his cave,
  complete with days of the months.  This would not be hard, if he had a
  working watch, but I don't think he did.  So, my question is, is this just
  Hollywood chicanery, or is it really a possible thing to do?  Bill G.  (I
  need to know, in case my plane goes down in the south Pacific some day).

I haven't seen the film, but if I had a watch  which was accurate to within, 
say, a
few
seconds per day (not too ambitious), I would use the beam of light as a transit 
to
sight
a star every night. I would use this to set the watch, having calculated the 
length
of a
siderial day as 24 hours times 365.25/366.25. To ensure my eye was always
in the same position, I would place a stone as a backsight or a headrest. I 
could
use
the same star for several months, then choose another.
Thus, I would always know the time of midday to within a fraction of a minute, 
and
could use this to create a pretty good analemma.

or

if I knew the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, date of perihelion, 
inclination of
the ecliptic
(I could measure this from the sun's altitude changes) and date of the vernal
equinox,
which I might know was March 21st, I could do the whole thing graphically or
mathematically.
That way, I could get to sleep at night.

Without all that information, and lacking a watch, I know of no way to draw an
analemma.

By the way, on what surface did he draw the analemma?

Happy New Year / Millennium to all

Chris Lusby Taylor
Newbury, England
51.4N, 1.3W


Re: Cast Away

2001-01-02 Thread Mac Oglesby


Thanks, Bill, for once again politely answering a dumb question.  You 
probably won't believe that for our new house in Brattleboro, which 
has a wall facing 46.56 degrees east of south, I'm just completing a 
combination noon dial, featuring a local apparent noon vertical line 
as well as a full analemma for Eastern standard noon, plus 
appropriate curves for the solstices and a straight line for the 
equinoxes.  (As a result of an earlier question, the indicating spot 
of sunlight will pass through a circular hole installed parallel to 
the dial plate.   :-)  )


A couple more senior moments and I'll go out and purchase stock in 
a long-term care facility!


Best wishes,

Mac







In a message dated 1/1/01 9:02:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

   If my plane goes down in the south Pacific, I float around for
   some time in a raft, and then live for a couple of years in a cave
   which boasts a thin beam of sunlight, how, even with a working watch,
   would I draw an accurate analemma?
 
You would mark the position of the sunbeam at the same watch time each day,
and if the watch remains accurate, in a year you would have a full analemma.
This is how the famous cover photograph from Sky and Telescope was made
(about 20 years ago?).  Bill G.


sunspots

2001-01-02 Thread John Carmichael

Hello all:

We watched the Christmas partial eclipse using a telescope to project an
image of the sun onto a white piece of stiff paper.  I fitted the large end
my 4 refractor with an 18 square piece of cardboard with a 4 hole cut
into it so that the cardboard would shade the viewing screen at the other
end from unwanted sunlight.

Even more amazing than the eclipse were the large number of sunspots.  I've
never seen so many.  We counted 24 of them!  This is because the sun is at
the peak of its 11 year solar cycle.  I checked, and found out that the sun
will be at perihelion on January 4.  I wonder if the closeness of the earth
to the sun at this time of year will make the sun's disk appear larger and
therefore permit closer inspection of the sunspots, or if the increase in
size of the sun is too small to be significant.

Does anybody know the difference in the apparent diameter of the sun, in
degrees, between perihelion and aphelion?  Is this significant?

Thanks

John Carmichael
Tucson Arizona

p.s. Some of the sunspots are so large that they can be viewed without a
telescope with the eye, using a welders smoked glass.


suns angular diameter

2001-01-02 Thread Richard M. Koolish

From the web page:  
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/SEgeometry.html

Eclipse geometry is complicated by the fact that Earth's orbit around the Sun
is elliptical. As a result, the Sun's apparent semi-diameter varies from 944
arc-seconds at aphelion to 976 arc-seconds at perihelion. This 3% range in
apparent size is, of course, quite indistinguishable to the naked eye.


Re: suns angular diameter

2001-01-02 Thread Jeff Adkins

It is true, however, that the difference is observable in page-size photographs 
that
lie side by side on a table.  There is an old project physics activity that has 
the
student plot the distance to the sun based on changes in the apparent size of 
the
sun; and from this data you can computer the shape of the earth's elliptical 
orbit
to some degree of accuracy.  You can also get the perihelion and aphelion 
distances
and dates from this sort of data.

Jeff Adkins

Richard M. Koolish wrote:

 From the web page:  
 http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/SEgeometry.html

 Eclipse geometry is complicated by the fact that Earth's orbit around the Sun
 is elliptical. As a result, the Sun's apparent semi-diameter varies from 944
 arc-seconds at aphelion to 976 arc-seconds at perihelion. This 3% range in
 apparent size is, of course, quite indistinguishable to the naked eye.

Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name=Astronomer.vcf
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jeff Adkins
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename=Astronomer.vcf

Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Astronomer.vcf 1 (TEXT/ttxt) (00020FD9)


Re: sunspots

2001-01-02 Thread John Davis

Hi John,

 Does anybody know the difference in the apparent diameter of the sun, in
 degrees, between perihelion and aphelion?  Is this significant?

The info you want is in the BSS Glossary (plug, plug!) under semidiameter.
The answers are 15.76 arcmins in July (aphelion) and 16.29 arcmins in
January (perihelion).  For the purposes of looking at sunspots, I'd say this
was insignificant.  If the differences were much larger, it would have a
noticeble affect on the seasonal temperatures!

Best regards,

John

Dr J R Davis
Flowton, UK
52.08N, 1.043E
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Cast Away

2001-01-02 Thread Gordon Uber



I suspect that the analemma, being familiar to the public on globes, 
sundials, etc., was used solely for that reason, call it artistic license.


Sun position lines (corresponding to the latitude dimension of an analemma) 
were marked on the floors of some cathedrals. See J. L. Heilbron's 1999 
book The sun in the church: cathedrals as solar observatories.


Prior to the availability of accurate clocks, the Equation of Time was 
determined by measuring the longitude of the sun. This was done by 
determining the position of the sun relative to the stars. Since the sun 
was observable only during the day, and the stars only at night, a mutually 
observable body was used to facilitate the measurement: the moon by the 
ancient astronomers and Venus by Tycho Brahe. The maximum 16-minute value 
of the Equation of Time corresponds to about 4 degrees of arc, so that 
observing instruments should be much more accurate than this.


Gordon

Gordon Uber   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  San Diego, California  USA
Webmaster: Clocks and Time: http://www.ubr.com/clocks


Re: suns angular diameter

2001-01-02 Thread Luke Coletti


I haven't tried to measure the variation of sub-tended arc of the Sun's
disk but have read (URL below) of it being done for the Moon, an approx.
14% variation. However, with an enlarged solar image, via a Heliostat,
perhaps the 3% variation (mentioned below) could be be teased out.
H...

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.html

-Luke

Jeff Adkins wrote:
 
 It is true, however, that the difference is observable in page-size 
 photographs that
 lie side by side on a table.  There is an old project physics activity that 
 has the
 student plot the distance to the sun based on changes in the apparent size of 
 the
 sun; and from this data you can computer the shape of the earth's elliptical 
 orbit
 to some degree of accuracy.  You can also get the perihelion and aphelion 
 distances
 and dates from this sort of data.
 
 Jeff Adkins
 
 Richard M. Koolish wrote:
 
  From the web page:  
  http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/SEgeometry.html
 
  Eclipse geometry is complicated by the fact that Earth's orbit around the 
  Sun
  is elliptical. As a result, the Sun's apparent semi-diameter varies from 944
  arc-seconds at aphelion to 976 arc-seconds at perihelion. This 3% range in
  apparent size is, of course, quite indistinguishable to the naked eye.


Re: Cast Away

2001-01-02 Thread Tony Moss 4Jan01

Warren Thom contributed:

(2) In the cave the shape of the hole went over his face.  But light rays 
come
into the cave in parallel lines -- so the shadow should be as large as the 
hole
not as small as his eye/nose.

I am glad I am not the only one who notices such things.

By no means!  I'm often amused when the skies in a film change from a 
convective day with fluffy cumulus clouds to 8/8 cirrus within seconds... 
but perhaps only a glider pilot would pick such nits?  

Tony Moss