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: Distance by Vertical Angle Adaptation
    From: Greg Rudzinski
    Date: 2009 Jul 27, 23:30 -0700

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


    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