The Ascent of Denali (Mount McKinley): A Narrative of the First Complete Ascent of the Highest; Peak in North AmericaStuck, Hudson
History
The Ascent of Denali (Mount McKinley): A Narrative of the First Complete Ascent of the Highest; Peak in North America
Stuck, Hudson
McKinley, Mount (Alaska); Mountaineering -- Alaska -- McKinley, Mount; Stuck, Hudson, 1863-1920 -- Travel -- Alaska -- McKinley, Mount
The altitude given on the present maps for Denali is the mean of
determinations made by triangulation by three different men: Muldrow on
the Sushitna[7] side in 1898, Raeburn on the Kuskokwim side in 1902, and
Porter, from the Yentna country in 1906. In addition, a determination
was made by the Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1910, from points near
Cook's Inlet. "The work of the Coast Survey," writes Mr. Alfred Brooks,
"is more refined than the rough triangulation done by our men; at the
same time they were much further away." "It is a curious coincidence,"
he adds, "that the determination made by the Coast Survey was the mean
which we had assumed from our three determinations" (twenty thousand
three hundred feet).
[Sidenote: Theodolites and Barometers]
There are, however, two sources of error in the determination of the
height of this mountain by triangulation--a general one and a particular
one. The general one lies in the difficulty of ascertaining the proper
correction to be applied for the refraction of the atmosphere, and the
higher the mountain the greater the liability to this error; for not
much is positively known about the angle of refraction of the upper
regions of the air. The officers of the Trigonometrical Survey of India
have published their opinion that the heights of the great peaks of the
Himalayas will have to be revised on this account. The report of the
Coast Survey's determination of the height of Denali claims a
"co-efficient of refraction nearer the truth" than the figure used on a
previous occasion; but a very slight difference in this factor will make
a considerable difference in the result.
The particular source of error in the case of this mountain lies in the
circumstance that its summit is flat, and there is no culminating point
upon which the cross-hairs of the surveying instrument may intersect.
The barometric determination of heights is, of course, not without
similar troubles of its own. The tables of altitudes corresponding to
pressures do not agree, Airy's table giving relatively greater altitudes
for very low pressures than the Smithsonian. All such tables as
originally calculated are based upon the hypothesis of a temperature and
humidity which decrease regularly with the altitude, and this is not
always the case; nor is the "static equilibrium of the atmosphere" which
Laplace assumed always maintained; that is to say an equal difference of
pressure does not always correspond to an equal difference of altitude.
There is, in point of fact, no absolute way to determine altitude save
by running an actual line of levels; all other methods are
approximations at best. But there had never been a barometric
determination of the height of this mountain made, and it was resolved
to attempt it on this expedition.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account