Author Topic: Intrepid's parlous log  (Read 2873 times)

AvastMH

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7306
    • View Profile
Intrepid's parlous log
« on: July 05, 2012, 10:25:40 pm »
Hi I'm doing mid April 1917 on the Intrepid.
Both PeteB9 and I suspect (please forgive us Caro) that it's the ship's cat that's keeping the log - to wit not ONE lat or long on a page that involved  a sea trip and the admiral visiting.  But what does worry me is that the wind on this page has gone from 4 to 8 without  scarcely a flicker on the barometer....do I note this as an event, or just let the scientists get on with it? Seems a tad odd to me!  Thank you!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-44878/ADM%2053-44878-011_0.jpg

Randi

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13127
    • View Profile
Re: Intrepid's parlous log
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2012, 10:53:38 pm »
The scientists will see the wind change and the lack of barometer change in the data.
I think that creating an event would violate TAW (transcribe as written) :-\

AvastMH

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7306
    • View Profile
Re: Intrepid's parlous log
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2012, 11:43:41 pm »
SOund advice - thanks Randi_2.

Right - time to darken ship. tomorrow is going to be horrid at work (Bigwigs arriving from London) so I think I'm confined to quarters for a bit.  :'(

PeteB9

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Intrepid's parlous log
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2012, 10:37:49 pm »
Intrepid and Iphignia are both in the same harbour on 1st July 1917

Comparing the weather readings they are not very similar :(

Don't like to compare more days in case I get depressed

Intrepid

http://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-44881/ADM%2053-44881-003_1.jpg

Iphignia

http://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-44943/ADM%2053-44943-003_1.jpg

AvastMH

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7306
    • View Profile
Re: Intrepid's parlous log
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2012, 11:20:17 pm »
My sympathies PeteB9.    :o
Whoever took the midnight reading on 1st July did very well - compared. But otherwise my first reaction is 'Yikes!'
I think the Intrepid is going to give the scientists a bit of a headache rationalizing things out.
For example, check the info between 8 and midnight on July 12th. The wind notches up 4 points (apparently over just two hours) and yet the barometer has only fallen 0.03" during that time. OK, it's dropped 0.2 across the whole day, but it just feels odd. And sometimes I look at the temperatures and go back to check them because they don't seem 'normal' for want of a better description. At any rate - I'm pushing on with transcription on the basis that it is the scientists (and aren't I glad it's not ME) will have to grapple with what might really have happened.  :o
You might have noticed another thread of mine - I do think that someone on the Intrepid has got some spelling problems.  ::)
Oh well - onward and ever upward eh?!

Right - time to darken ship.  Goodnight Pete - goodnight all.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 11:22:39 pm by AvastMH »

Janet Jaguar

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • Smell the sea, feel the sky, & fly into the mystic
    • View Profile
Re: Intrepid's parlous log
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2012, 01:36:42 am »
We've had a chance to compare ships in the same harbor before, and the first thing we figured out is that those were in slightly different places in an urban estuary.  The wind bouncing off different buildings can vary wildly in relatively nearby spots.  I have no idea how built up the Yukanski harbor is, or how warehouses etc. are situated near the various berths.  But this may be a way of evaluating how to read the harbor rather than ship accuracy.

The second thing I noticed is one ship has a mercurial barometer, the other an aneroid barometer.  The first is raw data needing calculation to include the temperature of the weather instrument cabinet into the equation, the second does not.  They are not supposed to be the same.

The third thing is, our gentlemen seem to disagree about what is rain or a passing shower or misty drizzle, but they both agree it is a cool, damp, humid, cloudy day.

But the point that really interested my is that their thermometers, both dry and wet bulb, are calibrated differently.  The difference is temp is consistent and obvious.  I wouldn't be the least surprised if the team didn't average the readings and then use this information to slant all other readings off both these ships for all of 1917.  And probably thank us for this find. :)

AvastMH

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7306
    • View Profile
Re: Intrepid's parlous log
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2012, 09:04:28 am »
We've had a chance to compare ships in the same harbor before, and the first thing we figured out is that those were in slightly different places in an urban estuary.  The wind bouncing off different buildings can vary wildly in relatively nearby spots.  I have no idea how built up the Yukanski harbor is, or how warehouses etc. are situated near the various berths.  But this may be a way of evaluating how to read the harbor rather than ship accuracy.

The second thing I noticed is one ship has a mercurial barometer, the other an aneroid barometer.  The first is raw data needing calculation to include the temperature of the weather instrument cabinet into the equation, the second does not.  They are not supposed to be the same.

The third thing is, our gentlemen seem to disagree about what is rain or a passing shower or misty drizzle, but they both agree it is a cool, damp, humid, cloudy day.

But the point that really interested my is that their thermometers, both dry and wet bulb, are calibrated differently.  The difference is temp is consistent and obvious.  I wouldn't be the least surprised if the team didn't average the readings and then use this information to slant all other readings off both these ships for all of 1917.  And probably thank us for this find. :)
Good points - and I have no idea about Yukanski either. I've got to admit it was the first wind direction that made me wonder - but 'yes' the state of the weather is subjective, and they are in the same quarter of the field.  But I'd love to know about the wind change with so small a change on the barometer, time to pester someone at work I think. There must be something I'm not understanding.

Craig

  • Shipherd
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3360
    • View Profile
Re: Intrepid's parlous log
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2012, 11:30:11 am »
I still find this disturbing despite your encouraging observations, Janet. Even if you adjust the mercurial barometer you would still expect the movements to be similar, would you not? Especially when the temperture changes are small. Given what Ava has said about inconsistencies between the wind force and the barometer reading, one might suspect the accuracy of the Intrepid's barometer.

PeteB9

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Intrepid's parlous log
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2012, 11:37:54 am »
We've had a chance to compare ships in the same harbor before, and the first thing we figured out is that those were in slightly different places in an urban estuary.  The wind bouncing off different buildings can vary wildly in relatively nearby spots.  I have no idea how built up the Yukanski harbor is, or how warehouses etc. are situated near the various berths.  But this may be a way of evaluating how to read the harbor rather than ship accuracy.

The second thing I noticed is one ship has a mercurial barometer, the other an aneroid barometer.  The first is raw data needing calculation to include the temperature of the weather instrument cabinet into the equation, the second does not.  They are not supposed to be the same.

The third thing is, our gentlemen seem to disagree about what is rain or a passing shower or misty drizzle, but they both agree it is a cool, damp, humid, cloudy day.

But the point that really interested my is that their thermometers, both dry and wet bulb, are calibrated differently.  The difference is temp is consistent and obvious.  I wouldn't be the least surprised if the team didn't average the readings and then use this information to slant all other readings off both these ships for all of 1917.  And probably thank us for this find. :)

No Intrepid has a mercurial barometer as well. The log keeper just doesn't note the reading of the attached thermometer.

My impression from google maps and pictures that Ava has posted links to is that Yukanski is a fairly large non urban bay with hills surrounding it which may produce katabatic wind shifts

The 4am reading where the 2 logs have the wind direction 180 degrees apart is probably a bit of carelessness from the watchkeeper. I think they used to call it joining the reciprocal club.