Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

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

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Azimuth Formula Questions
    From: George Huxtable
    Date: 2005 Oct 31, 15:54 -0000

    Bill, has just corrected an earlier posting about the final adjustments in
    the formula for azimuth in HO 229 as follows-
    
    > N. Lat
    > L.H.A. greater than 180.....Zn = Z
    > L.H.A. less than 180....... Zn = 360-Z
    >
    > A. Lat
    > L.H.A. greater 180..........Zn = 180-Z
    > L.H.A. less than 180........Zn = 180+Z
    
    That correction itself has a typo, in that "A. Lat" has been written, where
    obviously "S.Lat" was intended.
    
    Correcting that, and putting it together with the formula that Bill quoted
    from HO229, we get-
    
    ================
    
    tanZ = (cosd sinLHA)/(cosL sind - sinL cosd cosLHA)
    
    L is latitude
    d is declination
    
    > N. Lat
    > L.H.A. greater than 180.....Zn = Z
    > L.H.A. less than 180....... Zn = 360-Z
    >
    > S. Lat
    > L.H.A. greater 180..........Zn = 180-Z
    > L.H.A. less than 180........Zn = 180+Z
    
    ==============================
    
    But even after those corrections, is that now correct, I wonder? Here, the
    mystery deepens. I don't think it gives the right answers.
    
    Put an observer at, or VERY near the equator, and let him deduce the aximuth
    of a high star with a declination of 1 degree North, with a LHA of + 1
    degree (i.e. to his West).
    
    Or, exactly the same problem, but rather easier to visualise: from that same
    position, deduce the true bearing of another vessel, at 1 degree North, and
    one degree further West.
    
    Let's say the observer was just a few feet North of the Equator, with
    latitude = 0.001 degrees.
    
    Then apply that formula quoted above, with L = +0.001 deg, d = +1 deg, LHA =
    +1deg
    
    That gives me Z = 45.024 degrees. With observer in the North hemisphere
    (just) and LHA less than 180, applying the relevant quoted rule of Zn =
    360 - Z gives Zn = 314.975 degrees,. Just as you would expect, its bearing
    is nearly 45 nearly Northwest from the observer. Seems entirely reasonable,
    doesn't it?
    
    But now let the observer travel a few feet South, across the equator, to a
    lat of -.001 degrees South.
    
    Plugging in that new value of lat changes Z to 44.967, almost exactly the
    same as before (jst as we would expect, for such a small movement of the
    observer). But now, the observer's Lat is in the South hemisphere, so we
    have to apply a different rule to put azimuth in the right quadrant. With
    LHA less than 180, we now must apply Zn = 180 + z, , or 224 967 degrees, so
    its calculated bearing is now SW of the observer. This is obviously quite
    wrong, if we sketch the picture out. So either I have made a silly error, or
    HO229 has, or there's a further error in the transcription. Which is it?
    
    I don't think that the observer's latitude should be the basis for making
    that selection of the correct quadrant.
    
    Unless we can resolve this matter, I suggest that the HO229 "method" of
    calculating azimuth should be disregarded, in favour of the formula from
    Meeus that I quoted earlier. That has the important advantage that it gives
    the right answers! As a reminder, here it is again-
    
    Here's the expression to use to obtain azimuth from its Tan. It presumes
    that southerly latitudes and declinations are negative, that local hour
    angle is measured positively Westwards 0 to 360 degrees, and that azimuths
    are measured clockwise from North, 0 to 360 degrees.
    
     az = arctan (sin (hour angle) / (cos (hour angle) sin lat - cos lat tan
    dec))
    
     Then to put az into the right quadrant, apply the following rules-
     if tan az was negative, add 180 degrees to az.
     if hour angle was less than 180 degrees (i.e., to the West of the
    observer), add another 180 degrees to az
    
    However, I suggest that getting the azimuth using the Atan2 function or POL,
    if available, is simplest of all.
    
    
    contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com
    or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
    or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
    
    
    

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    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:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    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