A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Tony Oz
Date: 2018 Dec 16, 10:28 -0800
Thank you for this - definitely improved - Table 4 version.
Slowly-slowly I begin to see the light it in. The breakthrough came when I noticed and comprehended that part of the original "EXPLANATION":
- E is 5° + EoT
From then on it was only a question of not so user-friendly layout of other tables.
To check my understanding I selected the year 2007 for which the correction from GMT to OT equals to zero, expecting to check if tabulated E is indeed 5° + EoT. May be it is because I use unofficial data (I have no NA for 2007 yet) obtained by formulas from Henning Umland's "Short Guide to Celestial Navigation", I often get ±1 arcminute error against E's given in Table 4.
Also it was important to understand that the EoT value for the date must be calculated for 00h00m00s of that date.
I will try to obtain the most accurate set of EoT's for the year 2007 to re-check everything - and then I'll try to implement my recent skill of using LaTeX to create tables that would look really nice and clear.
Thank you again!