NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Antoine Couëtte
Date: 2009 Dec 15, 19:16 -0800
This Post replies to [NavList 11134] Date: 13 Dec 2009 18:50 written by Frank E. Reed.
Regarding the 'delta-T' term, Frank you wrote "Short answer: always include it." and you gave a detailed explanation as to why it should be included.
I found your detailed explanations very interesting. You brought up some information I was unaware of, including about the time period when the Moon predicted coordinates given by the US Nautical Almanac were more accurate than the ones then listed in the UK Nautical Almanac.
In your very last sentence of [NavList 11134] you also very rightfully pointed out that the current uncertainty about delta-T is "smaller than the uncertainty in the available lunar tables."
*******
Your view point and "philosophy" here is very consistent with the ones earlier given by George Huxtable in [NavList 11094], and to which I also directly replied in [NavList 11124].
*******
Things have become a clearer to me now, and I would summarize them as follows :
"In case of doubt regarding Historical Lunars, DO use our currently known delta-T values"
Thanks again to both of you Frank and George
Antoine
Antoine M. "Kermit" Couette
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com