 # NavList:

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

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
 Add Images & Files Posting Code: Name: Email:
Re: Distance by Vertical Angle Adaptation
From: Greg Rudzinski
Date: 2009 Jul 27, 23:30 -0700

```Frank,

Yes it does appear that small angles are not covered by this
compromise formula (below 8' for 250ft , 10' for 500ft, 12' for
1000ft).

Greg

On Jul 27, 9:25�pm,  wrote:
> Greg,
>
> Does this really work? I've tried a few cases, and it seems to converge
rather slowly. Let's suppose I measure the angular height of some distant
object with known height H=250 feet and I find the angle a=10 minutes of arc.
Assume my height is h=16 feet. For my first distance estimate, dist0, I
assume that the horizon is not obstructing my view and calculate
> � dist0(n.m.) = (3438/6076)*H(ft)/a(m.o.a.) � ;your first formula
> or
> � dist0 = 14.1 n.m.
> Next using the formula for the visibility range between two objects,
> � range(n.m.) = 1.17(sqrt(h1) + sqrt(h2)),
> I calculate the maximum height, dH that would be visible at a range of 14.1
n.m. by re-arranging, solving for h2 and calling that dH:
> � dH = [dist/1.17 - sqrt(h)]^2 � ;your second formula
> This is the number of feet in some distant object that would be obscured by
the horizon at that distance (with dist in n.m. and h in feet). Note that the
factor 1.17 depends somewhat on the terrestrial refraction so you could use
1.14 or 1.20 with no worries. Ok, so for this case, I get dH=65 feet. That
means that the actual height sticking up above the horizon is really only 185
feet. So I have to go back and calculate a new distance, call it dist1, from
the simple angle formula:
> � dist1 = 10.5 n.m.
> But now I have to calculate a new estimate of the height obscured by the
horizon and now I get dH=25 feet. So the height sticking up above the horizon
is better estimated at 225 feet. Now I need to calculate dist2 and so on...
There is, of course, a direct equation for this (which is rather long for
hand calculation and not easy to remember), but I like this indirect approach
on general principles and I am just trying to see if there's some way to make
it work better. Maybe the distances at each step should be averaged?
>
> Another case to try: h=16 ft, H=250 ft, a=1' (just peeking above the horizon). Determine the distance.
>
> -FER
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To unsubscribe, email NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

``` 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)