NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: "100 Problems in Celestial Navigation"
From: Rodney Myrvaagnes
Date: 2004 Apr 1, 18:19 -0500
From: Rodney Myrvaagnes
Date: 2004 Apr 1, 18:19 -0500
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:21:30 -0800, David Weilacher wrote: >I bought this book years back and gave up on it because it lacks proofs for the answers given. I had considered using this forum to help but couldn't figure out how to do that without infringing on the author's well deserved copyright. > >OTOH, answers 5-10nm different than his, aren't particularly unreasonable. HO229, HO249, and various plotting programs, etc, can have that kind of variation between them. Even using the same tables, a sight reduction form can introduce differences. > Is that really so? I have always considered it to indicate sextant-reading errors if I came out more than a mile from actual (GPS) location. 5-10 seems excessive for different reduction methods from the same data. Am I taking your meaning correctly? I haven't tried all those table-based methods, but have used calculators and a spreadsheet program, the latter based on the analytic reduction method in the Nautical Almanac. Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a "Accordions don't play 'Lady of Spain.' People play 'Lady of Spain."
