Home
The errors
The errors of the node and inclination were presented by me to the Society in June of the year 1837; and till the commencement of the present year I have been prevented from making much progress with the remaining elements. They are now though, from reasons which will be stated, necessarily uncompleted in a state fit to present to the Society.Before prpceeding with the explanation of my own calculations, I will make two or three remarks.The tabular errors given MBT Trainers me by Mr. Airy for the year 1833 were deduced by comparing the observed right ascensions and north polar distances with those interpolated from the Berlin Ephemeris of that year, in which, as we may gather from the introductions of some of the years, Lindenau's elements as far as they concern my present investigation were used uncorrected.From the discrepancies existing between the corrections of the aphelion deduced from the observations of the remaining three years, I was at first inclined to think that different elements had been used for some of those years in the computations of the Nautical Almanac. The Superintendent of that work, however, immediately convinced me that Lindenau's elements had been used throughout. Of these discrepancies, therefore, I cannot pretend to give any account.Lindenau professes to correct Lalande's elements, reduced to the epoch 1750, by means of Bradley's observations. They are given by him as follow:By thirty equations he finds MBT Shoes that the epoch requires a correction of the eccentricity, a correction of; and the aphelion, a correction of 493"'6; and these quantities, when substituted, satisfy his equations pretty well.His corrected elements he then states to be: It is evident from this that the correction has been applied to the aphelion with the wrong sign, which will make Lindenau's value used in the tables incorrect by double the amount of the correction, or by nearly.Without discussing the correction of the same elements for the other epoch, 1808, by the MBT Shoes Sale Seeberg, &c. observations, I may remark that, assuming Lalande's variation, and thus reducing to that epoch, he appears MBT to have made a similar mistake.
The errors of the node and inclination were presented by me to the Society in June of the year 1837; and till the commencement of the present year I have been prevented from making much progress with the remaining elements. They are now though, from reasons which will be stated, necessarily uncompleted in a state fit to present to the Society.Before prpceeding with the explanation of my own calculations, I will make two or three remarks.The tabular errors given MBT Trainers me by Mr. Airy for the year 1833 were deduced by comparing the observed right ascensions and north polar distances with those interpolated from the Berlin Ephemeris of that year, in which, as we may gather from the introductions of some of the years, Lindenau's elements as far as they concern my present investigation were used uncorrected.From the discrepancies existing between the corrections of the aphelion deduced from the observations of the remaining three years, I was at first inclined to think that different elements had been used for some of those years in the computations of the Nautical Almanac. The Superintendent of that work, however, immediately convinced me that Lindenau's elements had been used throughout. Of these discrepancies, therefore, I cannot pretend to give any account.Lindenau professes to correct Lalande's elements, reduced to the epoch 1750, by means of Bradley's observations. They are given by him as follow:By thirty equations he finds MBT Shoes that the epoch requires a correction of the eccentricity, a correction of; and the aphelion, a correction of 493"'6; and these quantities, when substituted, satisfy his equations pretty well.His corrected elements he then states to be: It is evident from this that the correction has been applied to the aphelion with the wrong sign, which will make Lindenau's value used in the tables incorrect by double the amount of the correction, or by nearly.Without discussing the correction of the same elements for the other epoch, 1808, by the MBT Shoes Sale Seeberg, &c. observations, I may remark that, assuming Lalande's variation, and thus reducing to that epoch, he appears MBT to have made a similar mistake.
