Time from Big Dipper/Polaris positions?

Was recently reading a sci-fi/alternate history tale and stumbled onto
something that caught my attention, as it's always been an "I wonder..."
concept in the back of my brain. Please note that, although it is indeed
a work of fiction, the author has an absolute fetish for "as much
reality as possible within the limits set by my MacGuffin" - Much of his
text is, in fact, devoted to clear explanations (some of which I know
from my own experience to be very accurate, and several others that I
don't have first-hand experience of, but know from reading and other
info-sources to be slightly "dumbed down", but otherwise basically
sound, descriptions) of using "old style" technology.

Here's the relevant passage -

He could just see the north star and the dipper between the leaves of
the two cottonwoods, and he lined them up and did the trick. Draw a line
through, from the north star to the top two stars of the dipper. Treat
that as the hand of a clock. Add an hour for every thirty days after
March 7, double the figure, and subtract it from 24. That gave you the
time. And he made it 0300 hours, give or take.

Now, based on this "trick", I've been trying to get a sensible result,
but so far, having little luck.

I walk outside, locate polaris and the dipper. So far, so good. First
question, though - Where is "twelve o'clock"? I've been going with the
assumption that if I "drop a line" from Polaris to the horizon, where
that line hits the horizon is "six o'clock".

Next question: "The top two stars of the dipper" - OK... Which ones are
"the top"? My assumption so far has been that he means the two I've
always been told are commonly called "the pointers" - A line connecting
them together, then continuing for approximately 6 times the apparent
distance between them ends at Polaris - thus, they "point" at the north
star.

So, with that in mind, I'm looking at the sky, seeing the dipper, seeing
polaris, and the pointers/Polaris form a line that's real close to
pointing at 9-o'clock - Maybe 8:45, maybe 9:15, but reasonably close
enough to 9. So 9+5 (give or take a day or few, 5 30-day periods since
March 7) equals 14. Double that to get 28. 28 from 24 is -4. So it's
"minus 4 o'clock". Uh... Not according to any clock *I've" ever seen...
And besides - my wris****ch says it's just after 11PM.

Where am I going wrong?

Or is the "trick" just a handy fictional device?

(But like I said above, the author is a stickler for reality other than
specific effects of his MacGuffin - there are several things in his text
that are accurate enough for any reasonably intelligent person to use
them as instructions and get good - perhaps not "master craftsman"
level, but "good enough" - results)

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

On Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:17:24 AM UTC-7, Don Bruder wrote:
Was recently reading a sci-fi/alternate history tale and stumbled onto

something that caught my attention, as it's always been an "I wonder..."

concept in the back of my brain. Please note that, although it is indeed

a work of fiction, the author has an absolute fetish for "as much

reality as possible within the limits set by my MacGuffin" - Much of his

text is, in fact, devoted to clear explanations (some of which I know

from my own experience to be very accurate, and several others that I

don't have first-hand experience of, but know from reading and other

info-sources to be slightly "dumbed down", but otherwise basically

sound, descriptions) of using "old style" technology.



Here's the relevant passage -



He could just see the north star and the dipper between the leaves of

the two cottonwoods, and he lined them up and did the trick. Draw a line

through, from the north star to the top two stars of the dipper. Treat

that as the hand of a clock. Add an hour for every thirty days after

March 7, double the figure, and subtract it from 24. That gave you the

time. And he made it 0300 hours, give or take.



Now, based on this "trick", I've been trying to get a sensible result,

but so far, having little luck.



I walk outside, locate polaris and the dipper. So far, so good. First

question, though - Where is "twelve o'clock"? I've been going with the

assumption that if I "drop a line" from Polaris to the horizon, where

that line hits the horizon is "six o'clock".



Next question: "The top two stars of the dipper" - OK... Which ones are

"the top"? My assumption so far has been that he means the two I've

always been told are commonly called "the pointers" - A line connecting

them together, then continuing for approximately 6 times the apparent

distance between them ends at Polaris - thus, they "point" at the north

star.



So, with that in mind, I'm looking at the sky, seeing the dipper, seeing

polaris, and the pointers/Polaris form a line that's real close to

pointing at 9-o'clock - Maybe 8:45, maybe 9:15, but reasonably close

enough to 9. So 9+5 (give or take a day or few, 5 30-day periods since

March 7) equals 14. Double that to get 28. 28 from 24 is -4. So it's

"minus 4 o'clock". Uh... Not according to any clock *I've" ever seen...

And besides - my wris****ch says it's just after 11PM.



Where am I going wrong?



Or is the "trick" just a handy fictional device?



(But like I said above, the author is a stickler for reality other than

specific effects of his MacGuffin - there are several things in his text

that are accurate enough for any reasonably intelligent person to use

them as instructions and get good - perhaps not "master craftsman"

level, but "good enough" - results)



--

Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

Here you go...

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~huffman/dtime.html

.... the part you left out, or perhaps the author left out, was that the 'face of a clock' is supposed to be a 24-hours clock, not a 12-hour clock.

\Paul A

In article ,
palsing wrote:

On Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:17:24 AM UTC-7, Don Bruder wrote:
Was recently reading a sci-fi/alternate history tale and stumbled onto

something that caught my attention, as it's always been an "I wonder..."

concept in the back of my brain. Please note that, although it is indeed

a work of fiction, the author has an absolute fetish for "as much

reality as possible within the limits set by my MacGuffin" - Much of his

text is, in fact, devoted to clear explanations (some of which I know

from my own experience to be very accurate, and several others that I

don't have first-hand experience of, but know from reading and other

info-sources to be slightly "dumbed down", but otherwise basically

sound, descriptions) of using "old style" technology.



Here's the relevant passage -



He could just see the north star and the dipper between the leaves of

the two cottonwoods, and he lined them up and did the trick. Draw a line

through, from the north star to the top two stars of the dipper. Treat

that as the hand of a clock. Add an hour for every thirty days after

March 7, double the figure, and subtract it from 24. That gave you the

time. And he made it 0300 hours, give or take.



Now, based on this "trick", I've been trying to get a sensible result,

but so far, having little luck.



I walk outside, locate polaris and the dipper. So far, so good. First

question, though - Where is "twelve o'clock"? I've been going with the

assumption that if I "drop a line" from Polaris to the horizon, where

that line hits the horizon is "six o'clock".



Next question: "The top two stars of the dipper" - OK... Which ones are

"the top"? My assumption so far has been that he means the two I've

always been told are commonly called "the pointers" - A line connecting

them together, then continuing for approximately 6 times the apparent

distance between them ends at Polaris - thus, they "point" at the north

star.



So, with that in mind, I'm looking at the sky, seeing the dipper, seeing

polaris, and the pointers/Polaris form a line that's real close to

pointing at 9-o'clock - Maybe 8:45, maybe 9:15, but reasonably close

enough to 9. So 9+5 (give or take a day or few, 5 30-day periods since

March 7) equals 14. Double that to get 28. 28 from 24 is -4. So it's

"minus 4 o'clock". Uh... Not according to any clock *I've" ever seen...

And besides - my wris****ch says it's just after 11PM.



Where am I going wrong?



Or is the "trick" just a handy fictional device?



(But like I said above, the author is a stickler for reality other than

specific effects of his MacGuffin - there are several things in his text

that are accurate enough for any reasonably intelligent person to use

them as instructions and get good - perhaps not "master craftsman"

level, but "good enough" - results)



--

Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the
letter Q

Here you go...

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~huffman/dtime.html

... the part you left out, or perhaps the author left out, was that the 'face
of a clock' is supposed to be a 24-hours clock, not a 12-hour clock.


Actually, after reading Kathy's post and that page, I figured out where
I was going wrong - 2 places, actually... 1: it's *4* months past March
7, not 5. 2: It's daylight savings time currently. So 9 + 4 = 13 * 2 =
26, 26 from 24 = -2 = 22:00, then add an hour for DST to get to 23:00 =
11PM means "The problem exists due to the idiot user's mis-application
of the algorithm" - A classic case of GIGO...

Thanks folks. Got to gawking at the forest and face-planted into a tree
I didn't notice.

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

On Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:17:24 AM UTC-7, Don Bruder wrote:
Was recently reading a sci-fi/alternate history tale and stumbled onto

something that caught my attention, as it's always been an "I wonder..."

concept in the back of my brain. Please note that, although it is indeed

a work of fiction, the author has an absolute fetish for "as much

reality as possible within the limits set by my MacGuffin" - Much of his

text is, in fact, devoted to clear explanations (some of which I know

from my own experience to be very accurate, and several others that I

don't have first-hand experience of, but know from reading and other

info-sources to be slightly "dumbed down", but otherwise basically

sound, descriptions) of using "old style" technology.



Here's the relevant passage -



He could just see the north star and the dipper between the leaves of

the two cottonwoods, and he lined them up and did the trick. Draw a line

through, from the north star to the top two stars of the dipper. Treat

that as the hand of a clock. Add an hour for every thirty days after

March 7, double the figure, and subtract it from 24. That gave you the

time. And he made it 0300 hours, give or take.



Now, based on this "trick", I've been trying to get a sensible result,

but so far, having little luck.



I walk outside, locate polaris and the dipper. So far, so good. First

question, though - Where is "twelve o'clock"? I've been going with the

assumption that if I "drop a line" from Polaris to the horizon, where

that line hits the horizon is "six o'clock".



Next question: "The top two stars of the dipper" - OK... Which ones are

"the top"? My assumption so far has been that he means the two I've

always been told are commonly called "the pointers" - A line connecting

them together, then continuing for approximately 6 times the apparent

distance between them ends at Polaris - thus, they "point" at the north

star.



So, with that in mind, I'm looking at the sky, seeing the dipper, seeing

polaris, and the pointers/Polaris form a line that's real close to

pointing at 9-o'clock - Maybe 8:45, maybe 9:15, but reasonably close

enough to 9. So 9+5 (give or take a day or few, 5 30-day periods since

March 7) equals 14. Double that to get 28. 28 from 24 is -4. So it's

"minus 4 o'clock". Uh... Not according to any clock *I've" ever seen...

And besides - my wris****ch says it's just after 11PM.



Where am I going wrong?



Or is the "trick" just a handy fictional device?



(But like I said above, the author is a stickler for reality other than

specific effects of his MacGuffin - there are several things in his text

that are accurate enough for any reasonably intelligent person to use

them as instructions and get good - perhaps not "master craftsman"

level, but "good enough" - results)



--

Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

Here you go...

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~huffman/dtime.html

.... the part you left out, or perhaps the author left out, was that the 'face of a clock' is supposed to be a 24-hours clock, not a 12-hour clock... and, it runs BACKWARDS!

\Paul A

"palsing" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:17:24 AM UTC-7, Don Bruder wrote:
...
He could just see the north star and the dipper between the leaves of
the two cottonwoods, and he lined them up and did the trick. Draw a line
through, from the north star to the top two stars of the dipper. Treat
that as the hand of a clock. Add an hour for every thirty days after
March 7, double the figure, and subtract it from 24.
...

... the part you left out, or perhaps the author left out, was that the 'face of a clock' is
supposed to be a 24-hours clock, not a 12-hour clock... and, it runs BACKWARDS!

But those are allowed for in the process by the doubling and subtraction from 24.
So the starting time should be read as if on a normal (12-hour) clock face.

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 11:17:02 AM UTC-7, Gavino wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message

...

On Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:17:24 AM UTC-7, Don Bruder wrote:

...

He could just see the north star and the dipper between the leaves of

the two cottonwoods, and he lined them up and did the trick. Draw a line

through, from the north star to the top two stars of the dipper. Treat

that as the hand of a clock. Add an hour for every thirty days after

March 7, double the figure, and subtract it from 24.

...



... the part you left out, or perhaps the author left out, was that the 'face of a clock' is

supposed to be a 24-hours clock, not a 12-hour clock... and, it runs BACKWARDS!



But those are allowed for in the process by the doubling and subtraction from 24.

So the starting time should be read as if on a normal (12-hour) clock face.

It just goes to show us that there is more than one way to skin a cat :)

A little experimenting will show that both methods work.

"palsing" wrote in message
...

It just goes to show us that there is more than one way to skin a cat :)

A little experimenting will show that both methods work.

Yes, it's obvious both methods are equivalent.
But I think starting with a 'normal' clock face is easier for the 'man in the street'
(or in the wood) to follow, even though it requires a couple of extra steps.

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:48:44 PM UTC-7, Gavino wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message

...



It just goes to show us that there is more than one way to skin a cat :)



A little experimenting will show that both methods work.



Yes, it's obvious both methods are equivalent.

But I think starting with a 'normal' clock face is easier for the 'man in the street'

(or in the wood) to follow, even though it requires a couple of extra steps.

Well, all I can say is that I learned something here that I had not considered before. I'll put both methods to the test the next time I'm out in the boonies with my telescope.

\Paul A

In article , Don Bruder wrote:

Here's the relevant passage -

He could just see the north star and the dipper between the leaves of
the two cottonwoods, and he lined them up and did the trick. Draw a line
through, from the north star to the top two stars of the dipper. Treat
that as the hand of a clock. Add an hour for every thirty days after
March 7, double the figure, and subtract it from 24. That gave you the
time. And he made it 0300 hours, give or take.

Now, based on this "trick", I've been trying to get a sensible result,
but so far, having little luck.

I walk outside, locate polaris and the dipper. So far, so good. First
question, though - Where is "twelve o'clock"? I've been going with the
assumption that if I "drop a line" from Polaris to the horizon, where
that line hits the horizon is "six o'clock".

Next question: "The top two stars of the dipper" - OK... Which ones are
"the top"? My assumption so far has been that he means the two I've
always been told are commonly called "the pointers" - A line connecting
them together, then continuing for approximately 6 times the apparent
distance between them ends at Polaris - thus, they "point" at the north
star.

So, with that in mind, I'm looking at the sky, seeing the dipper, seeing
polaris, and the pointers/Polaris form a line that's real close to
pointing at 9-o'clock - Maybe 8:45, maybe 9:15, but reasonably close
enough to 9. So 9+5 (give or take a day or few, 5 30-day periods since
March 7) equals 14. Double that to get 28. 28 from 24 is -4. So it's
"minus 4 o'clock". Uh... Not according to any clock *I've" ever seen...
And besides - my wris****ch says it's just after 11PM.

Where am I going wrong?

Or is the "trick" just a handy fictional device?

The instruction was "Add *an hour* for every thirty days after March 7".
If you add five hours to 9:00 you get 2:00 (OK, 1400 hours, but you
already found the problem with that). 24 - 2*2 = 20 = 8:00 PM.

But wait a minute. March 7. April, May, June, July 7. That's four
months, not five. Add four hours to 9:00 and get 1:00. 24 - 2*1 = 22 =
10:00 PM. That's beginning to sound sensible.

--
Kathy Rages

In article merica,
() wrote:

In article , Don Bruder wrote:

Here's the relevant passage -

He could just see the north star and the dipper between the leaves of
the two cottonwoods, and he lined them up and did the trick. Draw a line
through, from the north star to the top two stars of the dipper. Treat
that as the hand of a clock. Add an hour for every thirty days after
March 7, double the figure, and subtract it from 24. That gave you the
time. And he made it 0300 hours, give or take.

Now, based on this "trick", I've been trying to get a sensible result,
but so far, having little luck.

I walk outside, locate polaris and the dipper. So far, so good. First
question, though - Where is "twelve o'clock"? I've been going with the
assumption that if I "drop a line" from Polaris to the horizon, where
that line hits the horizon is "six o'clock".

Next question: "The top two stars of the dipper" - OK... Which ones are
"the top"? My assumption so far has been that he means the two I've
always been told are commonly called "the pointers" - A line connecting
them together, then continuing for approximately 6 times the apparent
distance between them ends at Polaris - thus, they "point" at the north
star.

So, with that in mind, I'm looking at the sky, seeing the dipper, seeing
polaris, and the pointers/Polaris form a line that's real close to
pointing at 9-o'clock - Maybe 8:45, maybe 9:15, but reasonably close
enough to 9. So 9+5 (give or take a day or few, 5 30-day periods since
March 7) equals 14. Double that to get 28. 28 from 24 is -4. So it's
"minus 4 o'clock". Uh... Not according to any clock *I've" ever seen...
And besides - my wris****ch says it's just after 11PM.

Where am I going wrong?

Or is the "trick" just a handy fictional device?

The instruction was "Add *an hour* for every thirty days after March 7".
If you add five hours to 9:00 you get 2:00 (OK, 1400 hours, but you
already found the problem with that). 24 - 2*2 = 20 = 8:00 PM.

But wait a minute. March 7. April, May, June, July 7. That's four
months, not five. Add four hours to 9:00 and get 1:00. 24 - 2*1 = 22 =
10:00 PM. That's beginning to sound sensible.

Yep, and as noted in my reply to Palsing, +1 for PDT = 11PM = Well
waddaya know! I was doing the addition and doubling mod 24 instead of
mod 12, so of course things came out wonky.

Ever felt tu stoopid to live? :-P

Ah well - Live-n-screw-up. And hopefully learn from it

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q