HomeUpSearchMail
NEW

Evaluating the lunar observations on March 31st 2024 at Calanais I

Introduction

On tis web page, the ground proofing of the 3D scenery of Calanais I site within Stellarium is progressed from the ground proofing on July 31st 2023. On July 31st 2023 the azimuth difference was found to be 0 +/- 0.1deg, which is equivalent to around 0 +/- 30sec.

A few levels might need to be reiterated:

These three levels are hopefully enough to get a good South viewing skyline (from the end of the avenue: near stone 8 and 19). More rotations/transformations could be needed, but that cannot be determined with the present camera location.

Steps to ground proof the Calanais I 3D scenery

On March 31st 2024 some 6 relevant photos were taken (by E. Rennie) to record the Moon going over/through the Calanais I site. These photos are being used to ground proof the Calanais I 3D scenery in Stellarium for the three mentioned levels.

The following steps have been used for the preparation

Determining camera postion

Checking the altitude of the real Moon and Stellarium Moon

By varying the viewpoint height in Stellarium we can determine when the viewpoint view matches the view seen by the camera. Several viewpoints have been checked in relation to nearby (Stone 4) and faraway (Stone 43, 42 and 41) stones. It is not always very easy to determine the altitude differenc,e because in many instances no clear stone 'deformation' can be found to reference. This resulted in the best matching viewpoint height of 95cm. The standard deviation is around 0.8arcmin in the apparent altitude (using 6 photos).
Height of the viewpoint in Stellarium

Matching photo and Stellarium view

The camera positon (using photo DSCF0038.jpg) matches the stones in Stellarium using: Easting: 121326.62, Northing: 933101.4, Height: 22.86, Eye: 0.95m (Viewpoint: 20240331-95cm).
The real live camera position was some 113cm from groundlevel.

Matching photo with Stellarium

The Easting and Northing positions are close to the values of July 31st 2023; changing was needed to matching the relative positioning of nearby (such as 4) and faraway stones (such as 41, 42, 43).
The height of the eye is now 10cm higher compared to July 31st, 2023..
Cnoc an Turso and the skyline look to be matching, so no RotEW  is needed.

Photos taken on March 31st, 2024

Here is an overview of the photos used in this evaluation (the photos just after 2 can't really be used, as we don't know where the Moon is):

DIfferenc ein timing on March 31, 2024

Good to see that the NTPtime for the 11th photo (DSCF0158) is the same as seen on the photo. This means the camera's clock does not drift a single second within 3 hours.

So the timing difference in timing is: 55 +/- 3sec. The standard deviation has decreased from 30 (around 6arcmin; on July 31st 2023 photos) to 3sec (around 0.6arcmin; on March 31st 2024 photos), so a great improvement.

The average difference is though big: 55sec (or around 11arcmin). This accuracy can't be compensated by changing the position of the camera in Stellarium (as that one matches the positioning of the nearby and farway stones), so this can only be changed by rotating the whole 3D scenery with 11arcmin on the vertical axis.

The accuracy of the 3D scan

Depending on laser angle of incidence, distance from scanner to surface and lighting, that could vary across the 3D laser scans to probably +/-1cm. And for some area this could even be a few centimeters (pers. comm., Carty, 2024). Thus at a distance of 80m (Stone 8 to Stone 41), this 1cm error becomes: arctan(0.01/80)=0.5 arcmin.
This standard deviation is comparable to what is found using photos, so no major improvement in precision looks to be possible.

8th iteration

An RotVert  of 0.197deg in clockwise rotation might be needed in callanish1_Readjusted20230821 (so this is clock to the rotation of the very initial 3D scenery: callanish1_Readjusted_20230505 [which has an RotVert = -0.184deg]).
This can be achieved by changing the convergence_angle in the ini-file to: -3.83588°.
No RotEW and no other transformations look to be necessary.


Iterations from initial 3D scenery
1st*
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
230505
230817 230818 230818-2 230818-3 230818-4 230821
V13
Start
RotVert
[deg]
0
-0.184
-0.184 -0.184 -0.184 -0.184 -0.184 0.013
RotEW
[deg]
0
-0.118
-0.088
-0.088 -0.088 -0.088 -0.088 -0.088
TransEW
[cm]
0
0
0
0
-30 -30 -30 -30
Transvert
[cm]
0
-44
-44 -20
-20 -7
-7 -7
TransNS
[cm]
0
0
0
0
0 +18
0
0
Proposed RotVert
[deg]
-0.184
+0
+0
+0
+0 +0 +0.197

RotEW
[deg]
-0.118
+0.03
+0
+0
+0 +0 +0
TransEW
[cm]
+0
+0
+0
-30
+0
+0 +0
Transvert
[cm]
-44
+0
+24
+0
+13
+0 +0
TransNS
[cm]
+0
+0 +0 +0 +18
-18
+0
The initial 3D scenery is callanish1_Readjusted_20230505.

The results of 8th iteration is that the timing difference is 0 +/- 4sec, or 0 +/- 0.8arcmin. This precision is also close to what is hoped for.

Experiences

Overall accuracy

We have been able to position the 3D laser scan properly within the 3D scenery and the Moon's path. The accuracy is around 1arcmin, which is close to the accuracy of the 3D laser scan (0.5arcmin). No major improvement in precision looks to be possible.
The standard deviation with regard to azimuth and apparent altitude is around 0.8arcmin.

Sequencing of adjustments

The best sequence of adjustments, by reducing interdependencies, of rotations and transforms is:

Determining remaining rotation and transform

Of course there are still a transform (Cnoc an Turso's DSM in North-South direction: TransNS) and rotation (3D laser scan around North-South axis: RotNS) possible; these are not yet investigated as these can't really be determined using the camera location at stone 8. One would need a camera location at stone 33 or 23 (and times of resp. set or rise events of a celestial object).
A realistic TransNS can't really be determined (as the effect of this is marignal on celestial directions).
The rotation RotNS will not have effect on the Cnoc an Turso's DSM, more on the positioning of 3D laser scan with the celestial object.

Artefacts in the 3D laser scan

A few stones in the 3D laser scan have some triangulation artefacts (these were found as they were handy for aligning the celestial object: red areas); stone 32 (error some 2arcmin: due to possibly wrong normal of some triangles); stone 26 (error some 2 to 3arcmin: missing left side top and small bit on the right side top); stone 27 (error some 2 to 3arcmin: missing left side top); and stone 28 (has a mushroomed top).
Artefacts in 3D scenery stones
These errors make up a part the accuracy of the whole 3D scenery (expected to be around 1 arcmin), so they are not that serious except if these missing stone contours are used for defining 'touch' moments. Upto now no stone contour that were missing, were used.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the following people for their help and constructive feedback: Emma Rennie, Georg Zotty and all other unmentioned people. Any remaining errors in methodology or results are my responsibility of course!!! If you want to provide constructive feedback, let me know.

Disclaimer and Copyright
HomeUpSearchMail

Major content related changes: March 31, 2024