Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: Azimuth and Declination formulae
    From: George Huxtable
    Date: 2005 Jul 15, 12:17 +0100

    >Peter Fogg wrote:
    > > Have found this one: (Azimuth formula)
    > >
    > > Chuck Pettis' Azimuth equation:
    > > AZ = acos ((sin D - (sin L * sin H) / (COs L * COs H))
    > > where  H = horizon height (degrees)
    > >
    > > (The H has me puzzled. Perhaps it refers to Dip, or could it refer to
    > > altitude?)
    No, it's simply the (corrected) height of the body above the horizon, in
    degrees, same as h in the expression given below..
    > > Here's another:
    > >
    > > Z = cos^-1 * [sin Dec - sin Lat * sin h / cos Lat * cos h]
    > > where h = vertical angle to the sun corrected for parallax and refraction
    > > (h = altitude?)
    No, it's not another, it's exactly the same expression, just expressed in a
    slightly different way.
    >I think they are the same sine method.
    No, they both derive azimuth from its cosine, not its sine. That expression
    (unlike the expression that calculates azimuth from its sine) has no
    difficult ambiguities about it. However, it becomes imprecise for azimuths
    near North and South, and (in that case) VERY dependent on the precise
    value of the body's measured altitude. Indeed, in some circumstances, near
    North and South, a small error in altitude can result in a value of cos az
    that exceeds 1, for which there's no solution. The great advantage of the
    tangent formula is that it doesn't even call for a measurement of altitude,
    at all. Also, it maintains its precision for all azimuths.
    >The first version may be for terrestrial navigators, with its added factor
    >of 'horizon height'.
    >Along the way, I found a formula for the calculation of the Sun's
    >Dec = 23.45 sin (360/365.25)
    >Its such a simple formula even I can understand it. Its the maximum
    >declination of the sun expressed as a proportion of its change.
    Peter may claim to understand it, but I don't. Nor do I understand his
    description of what it does. As it stands, that formula calculates the
    Sun's declination approximately one whole day after the moment of the
    Vernal equinox,  to arrive at an answer of  0.403 degrees North. Something
    is missing. The quantity 360/365.25 should be multiplied by the number of
    whole days elapsed since the vernal equinox, to get an approximate answer
    for the Sun's declination, expressed in degrees (not as a proportion of its
    >Here's another version:
    >Dec/23.45 = sin(0.985*t)
    >0.985 is a truncated version of (360/365.25)
    >and t = the number of days from the vernal equinox
    >t = (inv sin(Dec/23.45))/(360/365.25)
    >These formulae come from:
    Those formulae are defective, as Fred Hebard has pointed out, because they
    ignore the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit round the Sun. Just
    because information can be found on a website does not imply that it is
    accurate or reliable, or even true.
    Contact George at george@huxtable.u-net.com ,or by phone +44 1865 820222,
    or from within UK 01865 820222.
    Or by post- George Huxtable, 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13
    5HX, UK.

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site