A Long Lost Observation of Uranus Flamsteed 1714

Abstract

This is the 23rd ancient Uranian observation (the third most remote of all), being the first recovered since the two found by Breen (1864). Burckhardt (1817) and his predecessors probably missed it because of the proximity to quadrature; still I find that it is not really a new observation, but rathermore remarkable yeta lost one. It was, apparently, first noticed by Argelander (1832); but, this being the only ancient Uranus find during the time (1821-1846) of greatest psychological distrust of these accidental places, it was shortly disparaged by Baily (1835) and subsequently totally ignored. One may look in vain for any mention of it in the work of Adams, Leverrier, Newcomb, Lowell, Kourganoff, Wylie, Woolard, or Brouwer. For Uranus' heliocentric position, the American Ephemeris Tables (Eckert, Brouwer, and Clemence 1951) were chosen, to facilitate comparison to Woolard's (1952) table of residuals. E. K. Seidelmann of the U.S. Naval Observatory provided 1950.0 rectangular coordinates of the sun. American Ephemeris mean star places (Robertson 1940) were used, with Newcomb's (1905) precession formulas, with first order nutation and aberration. The result (in the same form as Woolard's Table IIB, mean places, equator and equinox of date) is given in Table I. The right ascension is the most trustworthy (±5) of the entire 1714-1715 opposition set, since enough stars were taken in this case to allow not only an accurate least-squares determination of the clock rate (which was quite uniform from 41d Piscium through 44k Virginis; the time for 46 Virginis is discordantdawn's light?), but also of a linear factor for the tilt of the mural arc out of the meridian. The declination, on the other hand, depends heavily on the method of reduction. The