NavList:

   

Reply

I brought out the extended markings to help clarify the discussion!  I 
realized that tan(89) does not equal the tan (91), yet the value denoted on 
the scale is the same for either tan(89) and tan(91).  The same applies to 
the outer scale, there is a sign change at 90 degrees, although the abs 
values are the same.

While I remain interested in resolving what the scales actually represent, I 
don't know that we have enough information yet. Peter has essentially 
utilized trigonometric identities to "flip the problem over".  Neither 
argument is compelling enough to state, hey, that's the answer.  No argument 
accounts for the absolute value, yet that must occur.  The scales are 
logarithmic, yet there are no logarithms of negative numbers.

Best Regards
Brad




-----Original Message-----
From: NavList@fer3.com [mailto:NavList@fer3.com] On Behalf Of NavList@fer3.com
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 5:46 AM
To: NavList@fer3.com
Subject: [NavList 8441] The Bygrave Slide rule


Brad's point is interesting - he points out that the reversed 90-180 degree 
markings on both scales show that the scales are logs of abs(tan) and 
abs(cos) respectively. Maybe this is just a 'kludge' for the annoying fact 
that logs of negative numbers don't exist. It's left to the user to sort out 
the signs when using logs to work with mixed-sign numbers.

However, I don't think Brad's point does impact on my postings, since it 
applies whether or not the scales are 'thought of' as cotan/cos or 
tan/secant.

In effect all I am saying is that I found the references to cotangent scales 
in the papers by Ron and Gary were counter-intuitive, and the alternative 
tangent/secant interpretation was easier to grasp, so I thought it worth a 
posting. If no-one else agrees with me then I will go back into my cave.

I can't contribute an answer to Gary's puzzle about the apparent impossibility 
of using the tangent/cosine method at the equinoxes (this puzzle is not 
limited to the Bygrave solution). A quick look at the celestial triangle 
tells me that if the sun is near the equator then the perpendicular from the 
sun to the observers meridian is also near the equator, so the equation for 
azimuth simplifies to tan(A)=tan(H)/cos(c), but this may already be what Gary 
has rejected as not being very pretty. I wondered whether the discarded 
azimuth in the alternative calculation might be a clue, but this is just 
equivalent to swapping the observer with the sun. The altitude comes out the 
same of course, but the discarded 'false' azimuth is then seen to be the 
azimuth of the observer as seen from the sub-solar point, which isn't very 
useful, even on March 21st.

regards
Peter M

--------------------------------------------------------
[Sent from archive by: peter.martinez-AT-btinternet.com]




"Confidentiality and Privilege Notice
The information transmitted by this electronic mail (and any attachments) is 
being sent by or on behalf of Tactronics; it is intended for the exclusive 
use of the addressee named above and may constitute information that is 
privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If 
you are not the addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering 
this message to same, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or 
disseminate this electronic mail (or any attachments) or any part thereof. If 
you have received this electronic mail (and any attachments) in error, please 
call us immediately and send written confirmation that same has been deleted 
from your system. Thank you."

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply