See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257521244

Study of Danjon limit in moon crescent sighting

Article  in  Astrophysics and Space Science · June 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s10509-012-1004-y

CITATIONS READS

10 2,624

1 author:

Amir Hasanzadeh
University of Tehran
36 PUBLICATIONS   392 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

work on variable stars View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amir Hasanzadeh on 14 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221
DOI 10.1007/s10509-012-1004-y
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
Study of Danjon limit in moon crescent sighting
Amir Hasanzadeh
Received: 2 November 2011 / Accepted: 24 January 2012 / Published online: 4 February 2012
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract About 70 years ago “André Danjon” a French
astrophysicist showed that as elongation of the moon de-
creases the arc length of crescent gets less too. By study-
ing the recent observational data, he concluded that at 7 de-
gree elongation, the length of arc (cusp to cusp) will reach
zero degree. Today, this value is named as Danjon limit,
which points to the limit at which the moon crescent is
formed. Danjon believed that the effective factor for occur-
ring this limit was the shadows of moon’s mountains. Later
researchers have obtained different values for this limit. In
this research based on the new data, the decreasing depen-
dence of length of arc versus elongation was obtained. The
results show that the Danjon limit is about 5 degrees. The
effective factors to form the Danjon limit are then given and
discussed. By considering the effects of astronomical seeing
and shadows of lunar features, the values of the arc length
were calculated and compared with the observational data
curve. The results of this study show good agreement with
the observational data. The present research shows that the
above-mentioned effects can reduce the length of arc. The
effect of libration and roughness of the lunar terrain of the
moon in forming the moon crescent were also considered,
and the possibility of observing thinner crescents by photo-
metric model and breaking the Danjon limit were given.
Keywords Moon · Crescent · Danjon limit · Brightness
A. Hasanzadeh ()
Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: a_hasanzadeh@ut.ac.ir
1 Introduction to importance of early sighting of the
crescent moon
The earliest visibility of the new moon has been the basis of
lunar calendars from early times. The Moslem, Hindu and
Hebrew calendars are based on lunar months. Efforts for ob-
taining an astronomical criterion for predicting the time of
first lunar visibility go back to the Babylonian era (Sultan
2007). Major developments appear to have taken place at
the hands of early Muslims (Ilyas 1988). The Muslim year
contains twelve lunar month, each starting at sunset of the
evening of the first sighting the lunar crescent. Many meth-
ods for predicting the visibility of the new lunar crescent
have been proposed throughout history and new models are
still being developed (Hoffman 2003). In the twentieth cen-
tury Fotheringham (1910), Maunder (1911), Danjon (1936),
Bruin (1977), Ilyas (1983b, 1988), Schaefer (1988), Yallop
(1998), Caldwell and Laney (1999) and Odeh (2004) have
developed empirical methods for predicting first sighting the
new crescent moon.
2 Introduction to Danjon limit
In the year 1931, André Danjon, a French astrophysicist,
noticed that the morning length of crescent arc on 13th of
August was only 75 to 80 degrees (Danjon 1932). By col-
lecting 75 observational reports from all over Europe, he
noticed that as the separation angle of moon from sun re-
duces, the length of crescent arc shortens, so that at the sep-
aration angle of 7 degrees, it reaches zero, and no part of the
moon is bright. This limit is named as Danjon limit (Dan-
jon 1936; Fatoohi et al. 1998). This phenomenon shows that
regardless of moon age, at elongation less than 7 degrees
the crescent is not formed and is therefore, not observable
212 Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221

Table 1 74 estimates of crescent arc lengths: No. is record number zone; Optical aid is N for naked eye, B for binoculars and T for Tele-
sorted by date; Date is the Gregorian date in the form year-month-day; scope; Elongation is the topocentric angular separation between the
Local Time is time of observations (no daylight saving time); Lat. is sun and the moon; Crescent length is estimated lunar arc length
latitude; Long. is longitude of the location of observation; TZ is time

No. Date Local Lat. Long, TZ Optical Elongation Crescent length

time (degrees) (degrees) aid (degrees) (degrees)

1 1931-08-13 4:15 48.60 N 7.70 E 0 N 9.23 80

2 1994-12-14 17:22 35.73 N 51.28 E +3.5 N 21.80 170
3 1995-01-31 17:59 35.73 N 51.28 E +3.5 B 8.92 90
4 1995-03-22 18:17 35.73 N 51.28 E +3.5 N 13.20 130
5 1995-06-29 19:42 36.13 N 50.42 E +3.5 B 18.32 145
6 1995-11-23 17:25 35.73 N 51.28 E −7 N 12.63 135
7 1996-01-21 17:57 32.42 N 110.95 W +3.5 T 7.64 60
8 1996-02-20 17:40 35.73 N 51.28 E +3.5 N 21.01 150
9 1996-04-19 18:37 35.97 N 50.78 E +3.5 N 19.62 165
10 1997-02-08 17:52 35.73 N 51.28 E +3.5 N 12.99 135
11 1997-12-01 17:22 35.73 N 51.28 E +3.5 N 17.76 150
12 1997-12-01 17:25 21.42 N 39.65 E +3 N 18.08 150
13 1997-12-30 17:32 35.73 N 51.28 E +3.5 N 10.96 120
14 1998-02-27 18:13 35.73 N 51.28 E +3.5 N 11.50 120
15 2001-08-19 18:40 29.50 N 56.80 E +3.5 B 7.55 75
16 2002-09-07 18:20 31.10 N 56.50 E +3.5 B 7.51 70
17 2003-05-02 19:21 32.62 N 51.68 E +3.5 N 11.62 150
18 2003-07-30 18:50 36.28 N 59.38 E +3.5 N 16.66 165
19 2003-08-28 18:29 30.28 N 57.07 E +3.5 B 11.74 120
20 2003-10-26 17:40 33.25 N 50.08 E +3.5 N 14.26 150
21 2003-11-23 5:58 34.57 N 50.13 E +3.5 N 11.20 120
22 2003-11-23 6:07 35.75 N 51.42 E +3.5 B 11.13 120
23 2003-11-25 16:15 36.27 N 59.60 E +3.5 N 22.00 150
24 2003-12-24 16:36 36.28 N 59.38 E +3.5 N 15.95 150
25 2004-01-22 17:24 29.98 N 56.72 E +3.5 B 10.01 120
26 2004-02-21 18:00 32.67 N 51.67 E +3.5 N 15.10 150
27 2004-03-19 6:06 35.73 N 51.45 E +3.5 B 22.72 165
28 2004-03-22 18:16 35.73 N 51.45 E +3.5 N 18.92 160
29 2004-05-18 4:33 32.47 N 51.80 E +3.5 B 12.19 120
30 2004-07-16 4:50 35.70 N 51.42 E +3.5 N 15.36 165
31 2004-07-16 4:21 35.77 N 51.50 E +3.5 N 15.57 150
32 2004-07-16 4:00 32.67 N 51.67 E +3.5 N 15.71 150
33 2004-07-18 19:50 36.25 E 49.75 N +3.5 N 13.57 165
34 2004-07-18 19:24 32.67 N 51.67 E +3.5 N 13.34 160
35 2004-08-15 4:46 29.78 N 52.73 E +3.5 N 11.22 120
36 2004-08-17 19:19 37.32 N 49.55 E +3.5 N 18.43 150
37 2004-09-15 18:26 33.25 N 50.08 E +3.5 B 12.02 120
38 2004-10-15 17:22 32.62 N 50.58 E +3.5 N 18.54 150
39 2004-11-11 5:30 32.63 N 51.37 E +3.5 B 19.31 150
40 2004-11-11 5:17 35.70 N 51.42 E +3.5 N 19.43 165
41 2004-11-11 6:20 32.67 N 51.67 E +3.5 N 18.90 150
42 2004-11-13 17:17 28.53 N 53.50 E +3.5 B 13.04 135
43 2004-12-13 18:18 32.62 N 50.58 E +3.5 N 21.70 150
44 2005-01-11 17:13 27.37 N 62.33 E +3.5 N 15.25 135
Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221 213

Table 1 (Continued)

No. Date Local Lat. Long, TZ Optical Elongation Crescent length

time (degrees) (degrees) aid (degrees) (degrees)

45 2005-01-11 17:21 32.62 N 50.58 E +3.5 N 15.41 150

46 2005-02-09 17:56 32.87 N 51.57 E +3.5 B 9.42 90
47 2005-02-10 17:58 35.67 N 51.43 E +3.5 N 22.48 165
48 2005-03-09 6:11 32.60 N 51.65 E +3.5 B 17.44 140
49 2005-03-10 18:31 32.42 N 110.95 W −7 T 8.42 60
50 2005-05-09 18:33 32.42 N 53.20 E +3.5 N 14.41 150
51 2005-05-09 18:54 32.67 N 51.67 E +3.5 N 14.57 150
52 2005-05-08 19:21 32.42 N 110.95 W −7 T 8.26 90
53 2005-06-07 19:36 35.83 N 51.03 E +3.5 B 8.82 105
54 2005-06-07 19:46 35.97 N 50.78 E +3.5 B 8.89 105
55 2005-07-05 4:00 35.70 N 51.42 E +3.5 N 16.25 150
56 2005-08-04 4:31 35.77 N 51.50 E +3.5 N 11.91 135
57 2005-08-04 4:40 32.67 N 51.67 E +3.5 N 11.84 150
58 2005-08-06 19:15 35.78 N 51.33 E +3.5 N 16.37 150
59 2005-08-06 19:11 35.70 N 51.42 E +3.5 N 16.34 150
60 2005-08-06 19:10 32.67 N 51.67 E +3.5 N 16.30 150
61 2005-09-05 18:37 35.78 N 51.33 E +3.5 N 20.06 135
62 2005-11-01 5:53 33.45 N 51.17 E +3.5 B 10.70 105
63 2005-11-01 5:53 32.63 N 51.68 E +3.5 B 10.69 105
64 2005-11-03 17:18 32.37 N 51.52 E +3.5 B 18.64 120
65 2005-12-02 17:06 33.27 N 50.17 E +3.5 B 12.82 120
66 2006-01-01 17:14 35.67 N 51.43 E +3.5 N 19.76 165
67 2006-01-01 16:56 37.32 N 49.57 E +3.5 N 19.67 165
68 2006-01-01 17:18 32.00 N 51.87 E +3.5 N 19.76 150
69 2006-01-01 17:18 35.70 N 51.42 E +3.5 N 19.79 150
70 2006-01-01 16:28 36.28 N 59.60 E +3.5 N 19.37 165
71 2006-01-30 16:40 35.70 N 51.42 E +3.5 N 13.27 120
72 2006-01-30 17:46 32.67 N 51.67 E +3.5 N 13.72 135
73 2006-01-30 17:31 32.40 N 54.03 E +3.5 N 13.60 130
74 2006-02-28 17:45 29.90 N 59.98 E +3.5 T 7.30 65

Fig. 1 Variation of decreasing

procedure of arc length versus
elongation, based on
observational data. The middle
curve is the fit and other curves
are 90% confidence limits
214 Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221

Table 2 The width of crescent (in seconds of arc) as a function of the elongation and the angle φ from the center of the crescent towards the cusps

θ φ
10 20 30 40 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

5 0.11 0.42 0.89 1.47 2.09 3.55 3.52 3.44 3.31 3.13 2.92 2.66 2.38
5.5 0.13 0.51 1.08 1.78 2.53 4.29 4.26 4.16 4.01 3.79 3.53 3.22 2.89
6 0.16 0.60 1.28 2.12 3.01 5.11 5.07 4.95 4.77 4.51 4.20 3.84 3.44
6.5 0.18 0.71 1.51 2.49 3.53 5.99 5.95 5.81 5.59 5.30 4.93 4.50 4.03
7 0.21 0.82 1.75 2.89 4.10 6.95 6.89 6.74 6.49 6.14 5.72 5.22 4.68
7.5 0.24 0.94 2.01 3.32 4.70 7.97 7.91 7.74 7.45 7.05 6.56 6.00 5.37
8 0.28 1.07 2.29 3.78 5.35 9.07 9.00 8.80 8.47 8.02 7.47 6.83 6.12
8.5 0.31 1.22 2.59 4.27 6.05 10.24 10.16 9.93 9.56 9.06 8.43 7.71 6.91
9 0.35 1.36 2.91 4.79 6.79 11.47 11.39 11.13 10.72 10.15 9.46 8.65 7.75
9.5 0.39 1.52 3.25 5.35 7.56 12.78 12.69 12.40 11.94 11.31 10.54 9.64 8.63
10 0.44 1.69 3.60 5.93 8.39 14.16 14.05 13.74 13.23 12.54 11.68 10.68 9.57
10.5 0.48 1.87 3.98 6.54 9.25 15.61 15.49 15.15 14.59 13.82 12.88 11.78 10.56
11 0.53 2.05 4.37 7.19 10.16 17.12 17.00 16.62 16.01 15.17 14.13 12.93 11.59
11.5 0.58 2.25 4.79 7.87 11.12 18.71 18.57 18.16 17.49 16.58 15.45 14.14 12.68
12 0.63 2.45 5.22 8.58 12.11 20.37 20.22 19.77 19.04 18.05 16.83 15.40 13.81
12.5 0.69 2.67 5.67 9.32 13.16 22.09 21.93 21.45 20.66 19.59 18.26 16.72 15.00
13 0.75 2.89 6.15 10.10 14.24 23.89 23.71 23.19 22.34 21.19 19.76 18.09 16.23
13.5 0.81 3.13 6.64 10.90 15.37 25.75 25.56 25.01 24.09 22.85 21.31 19.51 17.52
14 0.87 3.37 7.16 11.74 16.55 27.68 27.48 26.89 25.91 24.57 22.92 21.00 18.85
14.5 0.94 3.62 7.70 12.62 17.77 29.69 29.47 28.83 27.79 26.36 24.59 22.53 20.24
15 1.01 3.89 8.25 13.52 19.03 31.76 31.53 30.85 29.73 28.21 26.32 24.12 21.67
15.5 1.08 4.16 8.83 14.46 20.35 33.90 33.65 32.93 31.74 30.12 28.11 25.77 23.16
16 1.15 4.45 9.43 15.44 21.70 36.10 35.85 35.08 33.82 32.10 29.96 27.47 24.69
16.5 1.23 4.75 10.06 16.45 23.11 38.38 38.11 37.29 35.96 34.13 31.87 29.23 26.28
17 1.31 5.05 10.70 17.49 24.56 40.72 40.43 39.57 38.16 36.23 33.84 31.05 27.92
17.5 1.39 5.37 11.37 18.57 26.05 43.14 42.83 41.92 40.43 38.40 35.87 32.92 29.61
18 1.48 5.70 12.06 19.69 27.59 45.62 45.29 44.34 42.77 40.62 37.96 34.84 31.36
18.5 1.57 6.04 12.78 20.84 29.18 48.16 47.82 46.82 45.17 42.91 40.11 36.82 33.15
19 1.66 6.40 13.51 22.02 30.82 50.78 50.42 49.37 47.63 45.26 42.32 38.86 35.00
19.5 1.76 6.76 14.27 23.25 32.51 53.46 53.09 51.98 50.16 47.68 44.58 40.96 36.90
20 1.86 7.14 15.06 24.51 34.24 56.21 55.82 54.66 52.75 50.15 46.91 43.11 38.85

(Ilyas 1983a). Danjon suggested that this effect occurred
because of the shadows of the moon’s mountains. But no
accurate study of the matter was done. This interpretation
was questioned by some of the researchers. McNally though
that it was astronomical sighting that was important in this
phenomenon. He reckoned the value of this limit as 5 de-
grees (McNally 1983). Some years later, releasing his pa-
per, “Bradley Schaefer” gave some reasons to reject Dan-
jon and McNally. He stated that the loss of brightness in
the edge of the crescent bowl is the cause of decrease in
arc length. However, he confirmed the value of 7 degrees
(Schaefer 1991). Studying the observational reports, “Fa-
toohi” appointed the amount of 7.5 degrees for Danjon limit
in 1998 (Fatoohi et al. 1998). Recently by using “Blackwell
model”, Sultan reconsidered the Danjon limit and calculated
the value of the limit to be 5 degrees (Sultan 2005, 2007).
3 Quantitative study of Danjon limit
For determining the trend of decrease in the arc length of
crescent and to get the new estimation of the value of Dan-
jon limit, the author has collected various reports on the
observed values of arc length of crescents (Sayyad et al.
1999; Kamaneasemani website 2012; Unprofessional Group
of Crescent Sighting (UGCS) in Iran 2012; Islamic Crescent
Observation Project (ICOP) 2012). In total 74 observational
data were used (Table 1). All data are related to visual ob-
servations (by aided or naked eyes). The values of arc length
Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221 215

of crescent versus elongation were drawn. I have assigned
weight one for naked eyes and two for binocular and three
for telescopic observations, then a single polynomial of 3th
order fitted to the data. I found the following weighted poly-
nomial function:
Y = 0.0554x 3 − 3.0487x 2 + 57.2752x − 216.1024
Table 3 Predicted crescent arc lengths based on McNally model (for
5 arc second seeing)
For determining of the uncertainty, the 90% confidence in-
tervals derived for the curve fit. The fitted curve shows
that the crescent arc length at about 5 degree elongation
vanishes. From the lower and the upper confidence curves
seem that the Danjon limit is between 4.25 and 5.5 degrees
(Fig. 1).
This value is in agreement with the previous values
that McNally (1983) and Sultan (2007) obtained for this
limit.

Sun-Moon Predicted crescent

angle arc length
(degrees) (degrees) 4 Study of astronomical seeing on Danjon limit

6.0 10 McNally believes in cases that the seeing disk size is

6.5 40 more than moon crescent width, the crescent will be in-
7.0 60 visible (McNally 1983). The value of seeing varies with
7.5 70 the height of astronomical object. For good observational
8.0 80 conditions, the value of astronomical seeing at low alti-
8.5 90 tude is about 5 seconds of arc (MacRobert 1995). There-
9.0 95 fore for examining this effect for different elongations,
9.5 100 the width of crescent was calculated by using the for-
10 105 mula
 
10.5 110 cos θ
R = R 1 − ,
11.0 110 (cos2 φ × cos2 θ + sin2 φ)1/2
11.5 115
the angle θ is elongation, the angle φ is cusp angle that
12 120
measures from the center of the crescent towards the cusps,
12.5 120
R = 932 arc seconds that is mean angular for the moon,
13 125
R (in seconds of arc) is the width of crescent (McNally
13.5 125
1983). Then for the different crescents, width values of
14 130
each section were compared with 5 arc seconds (Table 2).

Fig. 2 Variation of crescent arc

length according to McNall
model
216 Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221

Table 4 The shade length of lunar mountain assuming angular height of 0.5 arc second (in arc seconds) for different elongations and cusp angles

θ φ
10 20 30 40 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

5 33.03 16.77 11.46 8.91 7.47 6.99 6.61 6.31 6.08 5.92 5.80 5.74 5.72
5.5 30.04 15.24 10.42 8.10 6.79 6.35 6.00 5.73 5.53 5.38 5.27 5.21 5.19
6 27.54 13.98 9.55 7.42 6.22 5.82 5.50 5.25 5.07 4.93 4.83 4.78 4.76
6.5 25.43 12.90 8.82 6.85 5.74 5.37 5.08 4.85 4.67 4.55 4.46 4.41 4.39
7 23.62 11.99 8.19 6.36 5.33 4.98 4.71 4.50 4.34 4.22 4.14 4.09 4.07
7.5 22.05 11.19 7.65 5.94 4.98 4.65 4.39 4.20 4.05 3.93 3.86 3.81 3.80
8 20.68 10.49 7.17 5.57 4.66 4.36 4.12 3.93 3.79 3.69 3.61 3.57 3.56
8.5 19.47 9.88 6.75 5.24 4.39 4.10 3.87 3.70 3.56 3.47 3.40 3.36 3.35
9 18.40 9.33 6.37 4.95 4.14 3.87 3.66 3.49 3.36 3.27 3.21 3.17 3.16
9.5 17.44 8.84 6.04 4.69 3.92 3.66 3.46 3.31 3.18 3.10 3.04 3.00 2.99
10 16.57 8.40 5.74 4.45 3.73 3.48 3.29 3.14 3.02 2.94 2.88 2.85 2.84
10.5 15.79 8.01 5.46 4.24 3.55 3.31 3.13 2.99 2.88 2.80 2.74 2.71 2.70
11 15.08 7.65 5.22 4.05 3.38 3.16 2.98 2.85 2.74 2.67 2.61 2.58 2.57
11.5 14.43 7.32 4.99 3.87 3.24 3.02 2.85 2.72 2.62 2.55 2.50 2.47 2.46
12 13.84 7.01 4.78 3.71 3.10 2.89 2.73 2.61 2.51 2.44 2.39 2.36 2.35
12.5 13.29 6.74 4.59 3.56 2.97 2.78 2.62 2.50 2.41 2.34 2.29 2.26 2.26
13 12.79 6.48 4.42 3.42 2.86 2.67 2.52 2.40 2.31 2.25 2.20 2.17 2.17
13.5 12.32 6.24 4.25 3.29 2.75 2.57 2.42 2.31 2.22 2.16 2.12 2.09 2.08
14 11.89 6.02 4.10 3.18 2.65 2.47 2.33 2.23 2.14 2.08 2.04 2.01 2.01
14.5 11.49 5.82 3.96 3.07 2.56 2.39 2.25 2.15 2.07 2.01 1.97 1.94 1.93
15 11.11 5.63 3.83 2.96 2.47 2.30 2.17 2.07 1.99 1.94 1.90 1.87 1.87
15.5 10.76 5.45 3.71 2.87 2.39 2.23 2.10 2.00 1.93 1.87 1.83 1.81 1.80
16 10.43 5.28 3.59 2.78 2.31 2.16 2.03 1.94 1.86 1.81 1.77 1.75 1.74
16.5 10.13 5.12 3.49 2.69 2.24 2.09 1.97 1.88 1.81 1.75 1.72 1.70 1.69
17 9.84 4.98 3.38 2.61 2.18 2.03 1.91 1.82 1.75 1.70 1.66 1.64 1.64
17.5 9.56 4.84 3.29 2.54 2.11 1.97 1.85 1.77 1.70 1.65 1.61 1.59 1.59
18 9.30 4.70 3.20 2.47 2.05 1.91 1.80 1.71 1.65 1.60 1.57 1.55 1.54
18.5 9.06 4.58 3.11 2.40 2.00 1.86 1.75 1.67 1.60 1.55 1.52 1.50 1.49
19 8.83 4.46 3.03 2.34 1.94 1.81 1.70 1.62 1.56 1.51 1.48 1.46 1.45
19.5 8.61 4.35 2.95 2.28 1.89 1.76 1.66 1.58 1.51 1.47 1.44 1.42 1.41
20 8.40 4.25 2.88 2.22 1.84 1.71 1.61 1.53 1.47 1.43 1.40 1.38 1.37

When the cusp angle falls below 5 arc seconds, that sec-
tion of crescent arc remain invisible. The predictable length
of the crescent will be twice the visible cusp angle. By
this method, the length of crescent arc for different elon-
gations was calculated (Table 3). In another study, by as-
suming the value of seeing to be 4 second of arc, the same
comparison was carried out (Fig. 2). This effect predicts
that because of variation of amount of astronomical see-
ing versus the altitude, the length of arc should vary with
the moon’s altitude, which has been seen in some observa-
tions. In addition, visual observations in space with elonga-
tion less than 5 degrees must be possible as is confirmed by
photographs taken by Koomen et al. (1967) on 12 Novem-
ber 1966.
5 Study of shadowing effect by lunar mountains
The first interpretation that was given about Danjon limit is
related to the effect of mountain’s shade of the moon edge
that causes long shades and as a result a bright section of
the moon is omitted. By looking at the topography of the
moon, I noticed that most of the moon’s limb features are
caused by the valleys and not high mountains which are not
much seen on the moon. The average moon edge mountain
height is about 1 km (0.5 arc second). Assuming that moun-
tains are like small bumps on the moon crescent edge, the
approximation amount of mountain shade length for differ-
ent elongations, with angular height of 0.5 arc second, are
calculated and shown in Table 4. Then, comparing the shade
length with the width of crescent (given in Table 2), As such,
Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221 217

Fig. 3 Variation of arc length

based on the calculation of
shade length

Table 5 Predicted crescent arc lengths with assumption of existence 6 Study of the libration effect and analysis of a few
of mountains of 1 Km height
records of crescent sighting
Sun-Moon Predicted crescent
angle arc length
(degrees) (degrees) The variation of libration causes the moon’s limb features in
different crescents to vary and as a result, an observer would
6.0 10 sight different arc lengths, for crescent with the same elon-
6.5 50
gation. In this research “Win Occult 3.6” software which
7.0 60
is applied for predicting lunar occultation and solar eclipses
7.5 70
was used to study moon’s limb features. The necessity of us-
8.0 80
ing this method and study of libration effect gets importance
8.5 90
when observing and sighting ultra thin crescents is needed.
9.0 95
Thus, record crescents were the focus of interest. As an ex-
9.5 100
ample the moon lunar limb profiles of the crescents of Rajab
10 105
1423 Hijri calendar(A.H.) (7 September 2002, No. 16 in Ta-
10.5 110
ble 1) and Safar 1427 A.H. (28 February 2006, No. 74 in
11.0 110
Table 1) are shown in the curves below (Figs. 4 & 5). In
11.5 115
both figures the thick parts of the crescent are placed in the
12 120
middle of horizontal axis. The elongations of these two cres-
12.5 120
cents are nearly the same, but the values of their libration
13 125
are different. Mohsen Ghazi Mirsaeed by observing the Ra-
13.5 125
jab 1423 A.H. crescent in Kerman-Iran, succeeded to obtain
14 130
the record of observation with aided eyes (Sinnott 2004).
A general look at the profiles depicts that the valleys and the
low altitude regions of Safar 1427 A.H. moon crescent are
more numerous than high altitude mountains. Therefore as it
was expected, although separation angle of Safar 1427 A.H.
if the shade length is longer than the width of every part of crescent was lower, its visibility chance was high, as actual
the crescent arc, that part will not be observed. So the criti- observations confirmed this prediction and sighting of Safar
cal cusp angle was obtained. The length of the crescent will 1427 A.H. crescent around Baft-Kerman set a new record in
be twice the observable cusp angle (Table 5; Fig. 3). crescent sighting with aided eye (Sinnott 2007).
218
Fig. 4 The lunar limb profile of Rajab 1423 A.H. (7 September 2002)
Fig. 5 The lunar limb profile of Safar 1427 A.H. (28 February 2006)
7 Study of discontinuity of crescent arc length
Another application of shadowing effect and libration in
moon crescent sighting is prediction and justification of dis-
continuous crescents. Sometimes, existence of high moun-
tains beside low level regions gives rise to generation of
high shadows that can darken some sections of the crescent,
whereas in thinner edges of crescent there are no dark re-
gions due to the existence of valleys, and the bright arc of
the moon is distinguishable. For example, in observation of
Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221
the very thin Safar 1428 A.H. crescent on 28 February 2006,
discontinuity of crescent arc has been hinted (Sinnott 2007).
8 Test of Danjon limit by photometric method
At the sunset, the brightness of the twilight sky is high, the
observer has to wait until the contrast between the crescent
moon and the twilight sky becomes sufficient, the crescent
to be seen.
Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221
Fig. 6 Tehran western twilight
sky brightness in July 2010 (in
nanolamberts) as a function of
the sun’s depression in degrees
Fig. 7 Tehran western twilight
sky brightness in February 2011
(in nanolamberts) as a function
of the sun’s depression in
degrees
In 1988, Schaefer used this model and calculated the log-
arithm of the actual brightness of the crescent divided by the
detection threshold brightness (Schaefer 1988).
Sultan (2005) considered the thin crescent as a group of
disks of varying angular size and used the surface bright-
ness. He modified the model by extrapolation of the Black-
well (1946)’s data. According to the recent model contrast
can be defined as C = (L − LB )/LB , where L is the sur-
face brightness of the lunar crescent, and LB is the surface
brightness of the twilight sky. The contrast threshold (Cth ) is
a measure of the ability of an observer to distinguish a min-
imum difference in surface brightness between two areas.
Cth depends upon the angular size of an object.
The luminance of the crescent can be calculated by physi-
cal equations (Sultan 2004) but the calculation of sky bright-
ness is a complex function. So I decided to measure the
219
western-sky twilight brightness (LB ) in Tehran, Iran. The
measurements were achieved in two different seasons (July
2010 and February 2011) using a Sky Quality Meter. The
photometer was fixed at altitude about 5 degrees and the sky
was cleaned after heavy rain.
The measured data are represented in Figs. 6 & 7.
On 28 February 2006 (No. 74 in Table 1), I find the site
(102◦ E, 8◦ N) where the difference azimuth of the moon
and sun is zero at moment of sunset. In this site, elonga-
tion is less than 7 degrees. I try to predict the visibility and
test the Danjon limit. To evaluate a photometric method for
predicting visibility of crescent moon, I use Sultan (2004)
Model. I smoothed my data to obtain the luminance of the
background sky (LB ), then the apparent luminance of the
lunar crescent (L) was achieved. To obtain contrast thresh-
old (Cth ), I extrapolated the data in Table 8 of Blackwell
220 Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221

Table 6 Summary of lunar-visibility calculations: Time is observa- of the lunar disk in minutes of arc, LB is twilight sky luminance in
tion time in UT, Mag is lunar crescent magnitude, Elong is elongation nanolamberts, L is the apparent luminance of the moon, C is contrast,
between the sun and the moon in degrees, Phase is illuminated fraction Cth is contrast threshold and Vis. shows visibility situation
of the lunar disk in percent, W is topocentric width of the illuminated

Time Elong Mag Phase (%) W LB L C Cth Vis

(UT) (deg) (arcmin) (nL) (nL)

11:30 5.69 −4.62 0.34 0.08 2.09 × 107 2.14 × 107 0.02 130 No
11:35 5.74 −4.62 0.35 0.08 7.14 × 106 1.05 × 107 0.47 120 No
11:37 5.75 −4.63 0.35 0.08 4.17 × 106 7.43 × 106 0.78 110 No
11:40 5.78 −4.63 0.35 0.09 1.13 × 106 3.66 × 106 2.23 100 No
120X 10.8 78 254 2.23 2.1 Yes

(1946). Finally, the visibility criterion will be C > Cth . The
Summary of calculations summarizes in Table 6.
In last row, due to the magnification 120×, I find that
L and LB drop but contrast remains constant while Cth
changes from 100 to 2.1. Considering photometric method
shows the crescent could be seen if we had very clear sky
and used a telescope with magnification about 120. This
leads to interesting result: the crescent moon may be seen
at elongation less than Danjon limit.
9 Breaking of Danjon limit
In recent years, some moon observers tried to sight crescents
below Danjon limit. In one case James Stamm, from Ari-
zona claimed that he and his assistant could sight Sha’ban
1425 A.H. morning crescent on 13th Oct. 2004 in 6.5 de-
grees of separation angle by an 8 inch telescope. However,
this report has been doubted by some authorities (Sinnott
2006). A German astronomer/photographer has made con-
siderable efforts in infrared imaging and detection of moon
crescent less than 7 degrees of separation angle. On 15th
June 2007, Martin Elsässer with the help of image process-
ing succeeded to take photos from moon crescent less than
5 degrees of separation angle, in daylight. On 15th May
2008, he succeeded to detect the moon crescent 5 minutes
after conjunction. His success not only showed that moon
crescents with a separation angle less than Danjon limit are
formed, but also questioned the Danjon idea on moon cres-
cent formation (Elsässer 2008).
On 14th April 2010, a professional astronomical photog-
rapher named “Thierry Legault”, using a similar method,
succeeded to register moon crescent with a separation angle
of 4.5 at the time of conjunction. Having proved that moon
crescent is formed at separation angles below Danjon limit
(Legault 2010).
10 Conclusion and suggestion
The present research shows that Danjon limit is about 5 de-
grees. It emphasizes on the importance of shadows of the
moon’s mountains and libration effects for prediction of vis-
ibility of very thin crescents. Although reports of moon cres-
cent sighting below Danjon limit are low in number, it is
suggested that attempts be made to observe and photograph
moon crescents below Danjon limit with the help of power-
ful observation tools. In case of confirmation, we can use the
corrected limit as the minimum condition for moon crescent
visibility.
Acknowledgements This work is supported by Institute of Geo-
physics-University of Tehran (No. 622050/0/01). I thank all the num-
bers of Iranian Groups of crescent sighting. I would like to thank Prof.
Fatemi and Dr. Doostmohammadi of Kerman University for helping
complete my manuscript.
References
Blackwell, H.R.: J. Opt. Soc. Am. 36, 624 (1946)
Bruin, F.: Vistas Astron. 21, 331 (1977)
Caldwell, J.A.R., Laney, C.D.: Mon. Notes Astron. Soc. South. Afr.
58, 150 (1999)
Danjon, A.: Astron. Bull. Soc. Astron. Fr. 46, 57 (1932)
Danjon, A.: Astron. Bull. Soc. Astron. Fr. 50, 57 (1936)
Elsässer, M.: World record crescent imaging on 5 May
2008. http://www.mondatlas.de/other/martinel/sicheln2008/
mai/mosi20080505.html
Fotheringham, J.K.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 70, 527 (1910)
Fatoohi, L.F., Stephenson, R., Al-Dagazelli, S.: The Observatory 118,
65 (1998)
Ilyas, M.: J. R. Astron. Soc. Can. 77, 214 (1983a)
Ilyas, M.: The Observatory 103, 26 (1983b)
Ilyas, M.: Astron. Astrophys. 206, 133 (1988)
Islamic Crescent Observation Project (ICOP) (2012). www.icoproject.
org
Kamaneasemani website (2012). www.kamaneasemani.com
Koomen, M.J., Seal, R.T., Tousey, T.: Astron. J. 72, 808 (1967)
Hoffman, R.E.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 340, 1039 (2003)
Legault, T.: World Record-The Youngest New Moon Crescent.
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/new_moon_2010april14.html, 14 April
2010
Astrophys Space Sci (2012) 339:211–221
McNally, D.: Q. J. R. Astron. Soc. 24, 417 (1983)
MacRobert, A.M.: Environ. Sci. Technol. 89(4), 40 (1995)
Maunder, E.W.: J. Br. Astron. Assoc. 21, 355 (1911)
Odeh, M.: Exp. Astron. 18, 39 (2004)
Sayyad, M.R., Bagheri, M., Taromi, H.: Lunar Crescent Visibility
during the Years 1415–1418 A.H. (in Persian), Balagh, Tehran
(1999)
Schaefer, B.E.: Q. J. R. Astron. Soc. 29, 511 (1988)
Schaefer, B.E.: Q. J. R. Astron. Soc. 32, 265 (1991)
Sinnott, R.W.: Environ. Sci. Technol. 107(2), 102 (2004)
Sinnott, R.W.: Environ. Sci. Technol. 111(2), 60 (2006)
View publication stats
221
Sinnott, R.W.: Environ. Sci. Technol. 113(2), 65 (2007)
Sultan, A.H.: The Observatory 124, 390 (2004)
Sultan, A.H.: The Observatory 125, 227 (2005)
Sultan, A.H.: The Observatory 127, 53 (2007)
Unprofessional Group of Crescent Sighting (UGCS) in Iran (2012).
www.ugcs.ir
Yallop, B.D.: A Method for Predicting the First Sighting of the New
Crescent Moon: Technical Note No. 69, HM Nautical Almanac
Office. Royal Greenwich Observatory, Cambridge (1998)