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: Distance by Vertical Angle Adaptation
    From: Greg Rudzinski
    Date: 2009 Jul 31, 12:36 -0700

    Anacapa Light is actually 277ft but I find it a better visual to use
    the peak of land under the light(250ft) for the vertical angle from
    long distance. Short of the horizon the top of the light house is a
    good visual so that .567(277ft)/MOA or 157/MOA can be used to get
    distance.
    
    On Jul 31, 12:12�pm, Greg Rudzinski  wrote:
    > Frank's modified Bowditch formula for distance by vertical angle is
    > now inked into my piloting note book and useful for generating a table
    > of distances for frequently used object heights.
    >
    > Table for Anacapa Light at 250 ft. from a height of eye of 6 ft.
    >
    > MOA � � �Distance (NM)
    > 1' � � � 19.8
    > 2' � � � 18.6
    > 3' � � � 17.4
    > 4' � � � 16.3
    > 5' � � � 15.3
    > 6' � � � 14.3
    > 7' � � � 13.4
    > 8' � � � 12.6
    > 9' � � � 11.9
    > 10' � � �11.2
    > 15' � � � 8.5
    > 20' � � � 6.7
    > 25' � � � 5.5
    > 30' � � � 4.7
    > 40' � � � 3.5
    >
    > 142/MOA (NM for MOA above 40')
    >
    > On Jul 29, 6:51�pm, Greg Rudzinski  wrote:
    >
    > > Frank,
    >
    > > I've practiced a bit with your formula and find it satisfactory if I
    > > use an index card to keep track of things. The head calculation is
    > > quite a test and I have to admit that I couldn't get the same result
    > > two times in a row ;-)
    >
    > > Greg
    >
    > > On Jul 29, 6:19�pm,  wrote:
    >
    > > > I wrote:
    >
    > > > "D = 1.21*[sqrt[a1^2+0.94*(H0-h)] - a1]
    > > > � where a1=a-0.97*sqrt(h)) "
    >
    > > > And Greg, you wrote:
    >
    > > > "The over the horizon distance by vertical angle problem remains begging 
    for a calculator/slide rule friendly formula."
    >
    > > > Well, it is what it is, right? This certainly isn't hard to work on a 
    calculator, and in fact it's not that hard to do in your head. Compare it 
    against the equation in Bowditch which supposedly "explains" the origin of 
    Table 15. In what school of obfuscation do they teach people to put 0.000246 
    in the denominator of an equation?? And the difference between tan(x) and 
    x/3438 is much less than 1% for any angles that might ever be used for this 
    calculation, so why do they bother with explicit use of the tangent in the 
    equation? To make it look more "serious"?
    >
    > > > What should be said, and isn't said enough, is that these equations (and 
    tables) only provide an estimate of the distance since they depend on a mean 
    state of the terrestrial refraction. Terrestrial refraction (meaning 
    refraction of light traveling nearly horizontally close to the Earth's 
    surface) on average bends light rays downward by about one minute of arc for 
    every 6 nautical miles, but a range of 0.75 to 1.25 minutes in the same 
    distance should be expected as normal variation (on the order of one s.d.). 
    This matters for angles over the horizon because the we're measuring an angle 
    between things which may be at very differnt distances. If the horizon is 
    five miles away, and the vessel beyond the horizon is twenty miles away, then 
    a small increase in refraction lifts the image of the vessel much more than 
    the horizon (the distance to the horizon itself changes so the comparison is 
    not one-to-one).
    >
    > > > And it's possible to have even larger variations in terrestrial 
    variation than this. If the air gets cooler with altitude more rapidly than 
    normal, the terrestrial refraction can be zero (never less than zero for more 
    than a few seconds so that really is the lower limit). If, rather than 
    cooling with altitude, the atmosphere gets warmer with altitude at just the 
    right rate, the terrestrial refraction can be 6 minutes of arc in 6 nautical 
    miles which means that horizontal light rays remain parallel to the ground 
    from all distances --and that means that the Earth looks flat and objects at 
    all distances are in front of the sea horizon (the sea horizon would not 
    actually be visible in this case, and note that this is not an upper limit).
    >
    > > > -FER
    --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
    NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
    Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, email NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
    -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    
    

       
    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