Appendix

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SCHMIDT'S LUNAR ECLIPSE OBSERVATIONS

Byron W. Soulsby

Calwell Lunar Observatory–Updated by the Isabella Plains Lunar Observatory Australiain February 2008.

**** SUMMARY OF CRATER TIMING REDUCTIONS ****

Schmidt's timings were analysed using a series of QuickBasic V4.5 software programs and are compared in the table below with those of the author which used computed primary contact and selected crater timing predictions for each eclipse, using identical ephemerides.

The reciprocal umbral oblateness (OBL) values were found from a best-fit ellipse program with statistical acceptance limits of 0 < %E < 4 for all primary contact and crater timing results.

IMMERSION Crater Timings EMERSION Crater Timings

`DATE` `OBSERVER`	`No`	`MEAN %E`	`Mean` `Error`	`OBL`	`No`	`MEAN %E`	`Mean` `Error`	`OBL`
`18420126(1)`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`23`	`1.8987`	`0.1462`	`371`	`27`	`2.2595`	`0.1438`	`42.5`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.` `PREDICTIONS`	72 `234`	2.3530 `2.3875`	0.0106 `0.0035`	221 `380`	1 `233`	2.0293 `2.2252`	- `0.0094`	- `-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`329`	`2.3458`	`0.0150`		`266`	`2.2295`	`0.0238`
`18431207`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`4`	`1.6777`	`0.4497`	`-`	`2`	1.1762	0..7065	`-`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`6`	`2.0376`	`0.1368`	`-`	`4`	2.6109	0.0333	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`10`	`1.8937`	`0.2620`		6	2.1327	0.2577
`18440531`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`39`	`2.0048`	`0.1413`	`79.6`	`41`	`1.9640`	`0.1357`	`50.0`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`56`	`1.2773`	`0.0305`	`65.4`	`0`			`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`95`	`1.5760`	`0.0760`		`41`	`1.9640`	`0.1357`
`18441124`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`8`	`2.6295`	`0.2940`	`-`	`0`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`58`	`1.4706`	`0.0259`	`66.4`	`0`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`66`	`1.6111`	`0.0584`
`18470331`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`0`			`-`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`18`	`1.9148`	`0.0336`	`259`	`1`	`2.3118`	`0`	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`18`	`1.9148`	`0.0336`		`1`	`2.3118`	`0`
`18480319`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`7`	2.2270	0.1894	`-`	`23`	`2.3740`	`0.1590`	`-`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`55`	`1.5911`	`0.0205`	`79.15`	`0`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`62`	`1.6629`	`0.0396`		`23`	`2.3740`	`0.1590`
`1849039`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`28`	2.5417	0.1386	-	`19`	1.4980	0.1503	-
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`42`	`2.1423`	`0.0456`	`62.3`	`42`	2.2258	0.0218	71.5
`Total No / Mean / me`	`70`	`2.3021`	`0.0828`		61	1.9991	0.0618
`18510117`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`1`	`0.8478`	`-`		`1`	`1.7952`	`-`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`214`	`2.1039`	`0.0064`	-	`8`	`2.1068`	`0.0553`	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`215`	`2.0980`	`0.0064`		`9`	`2.0722`	`0.0553`
`18520107`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`0`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`58`	`1.3760`	`0.0127`	`371`	`2`	`1.6128`	`0.1593`	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`58`	`1.3760`	`0.0127`		`2`	`1.6128`	`0.1593`
`18541104`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`0`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`18`	`2.0781`	`0.0109`	`82`	`3`	`1.9291`	`0.0798`	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`18`	`2.0781`	`0.0109`		`3`	`1.9291`	`0.0798`
`18561013`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`		`1.0470`	`0.1405`	`88.8`	`58`	`2.6986`	`0.1193`	`36.9`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`		`1.5014`	`0.0253`	`189`	`1`	`2.1586`	`0`	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`		`1.3329`	`0.0680`		`59`	`2.6894`	`0.1193`
`18580227`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`0`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`121`	`2.3573`	`0.0134`	65.8	`9`	`2.4645`	`0.0112`	`207`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`121`	`2.3573`	`0.0134`		`9`	`2.4645`	`0.0112`
`18600207`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`35`	`1.4711`	`0.1329`	`371`	`60`	`2.4965`	`0.1103`	`41.6`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	242	1.8306	0.0107		238	2.3817	0.0069
`Total No / Mean / me`	`277`	`1.7851`	`0.0261`		`301`	`2.4015`	`0.0277`
`18600801`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`9`	2.4477	0.2181	`-`	`9`	`2.9154`	`0.0981`	`-`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`37`	`1.9890`	`0.1766`	`-`	`7`	`1.8941`	`0.5610`	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`46`	`2.0787`	`0.1847`		`16`	`2.4686`	`0.3006`
`18630601`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`62`	`1.8359`	`0.1094`	`370`	`1`	2.0817	`-`	`-`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`59`	`2.0244`	`0.0392`	`92.4`	`1`	`1.8116`	`-`	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`121`	`1.9278`	`0.0752`		`2`	`1.9467`	`-`
`18660331`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`8`	`2.4228`	`0.3735`	`-`	`0`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	297	`1.4100`	`0.0129`	`-`	`296`	`1.9678`	`0.0162`	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`305`	1.4366	0.0224		`296`	`1.9678`	`0.0162`
`18670914`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`44`	`1.6755`	`0.1038`	`307`	`42`	`2.6345`	`0.1076`	`57.8`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`24`	`2.0107`	`0.1587`	`101`	`182`	`2.0710`	`0.0166`	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`68`	1.7938	0.1232		`204`	2.3900	0.0369
`18690128`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`39`	`1.6976`	`0.0752`	`286`	`27`	`2.3663`	`0.1057`	`34.4`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`206`	`2.2839`	`0.0058`	`302`	`207`	`1.9745`	`0.0117`	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`245`	`2.1905`	`0.0169`		`234`	`2.0250`	`0.0227`
`18700712`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`26`	`1.2672`	`0.1310`	`85.5`	`24`	`2.4823`	`0.1822`	`6.6`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`58`	`1.4674`	`0.0202`	`46.9`	`58`	`1.7947`	`0.0351`	`21.3`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`81`	`1.2610`	`0.0538`		`78`	`2.1142`	`0.0772`
`18710106`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`32`	`1.5549`	`0.0751`	`164`	`25`	`2.3871`	`0.1483`	`44.0`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`149`	`1.9226`	`0.0244`	`171`	`154`	2.5679	0.0040	`-`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`181`	`1.8576`	`0.0334`		`179`	`2.5426`	`0.0242`
`18731104`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`0`				`22`	`2.5847`	`0.1819`	`-`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`296`	`1.9140`	`0.0068`	`417`	`296`	`1.3888`	`0.0082`	`-`
`CHANTZIDOKIS T.`	`0`				`1`	`1.8719`	-
`KOKIDES D. DR`	`0`				`1`	`2.4269`	-
`WURLISCH AL`	`0`				`1`	`3.2058`	-
`Total No / Mean / me`	`296`	`1.9140`	`0.0068`		`321`	`1.4812`	`0.0206`
`18760903`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`29`	`1.6568`	`0.0654`	`47.2`	`29`	`2.2756`	`0.0514`	`93`
`SOULSBY BYRON W.`	`58`	`1.4674`	`0.0202`	`46.9`	`58`	`1.7947`	`0.0351`	`21.3`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`81`	`1.2610`	`0.0538`		`78`	`2.1142`	`0.0772`
`18770227`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	`50`	`1.3051`	`0.0926`	-	`46`	`2.5283`	`0.1210`	`375`
`SOULSBY BYRON`	`55`	`1.8991`	`0.0924`	`197`	`53`	`1.18421`	`0.0249`	`24.7`
`Total No / Mean / me`	`108`	`1.6967`	`0.1036`		`117`	`2.2806`
`18770823`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	0
`SOULSBY BYRON`
`WURLISCH AL`	1	1.3736	-		1	3.8139	-
`Total No / Mean / me`
`18791228`
`SCHMIDT JULIUS`	0
`SOULSBY BYRON`	49	2.2969	0.0234	35	4	2.5034	0.1229
`Total No / Mean / me`	49	2.2969	0.0234		4	2.5034	0.1229

The figures in RED are dubious or not reproducable.

The Excel chart below shows the difference between Schmidt's Crater Immersion observation reductions for % enlargement and those found from the predictions: Generally all differences are positive and up to 2.5%.

This Excel Chart compares the change in the value of % E between Schmidt's reductions and the predictions, expressed as % change, the scatter is around 1 to 2.5 %.

Produced by the *Calwell Lunar Observatory Australia and the Isabella Plains Lunar Observatory Australia*, 2008 February16.