NavList:

Hi; thanks for the info.

I guess I've probably been wasting my time reading that edition of Bowditch. Frankly, I very much doubt that in real life, I could read lunar distance with a sextant to the accuracy that would make this method worthwhile.

I've also been reading Huxtable's "about lunars" which uses Borda's method, and that doesn't seem quite so bad. I'll also look into Thomson’s method. I'd been planning on writing a post asking if anybody knew where the tables in Bowditch came from, but I think I'll pass now.

The background of my interest: I was on this list a couple decades ago, and a post went out that the BBC was going to re-create Cook's voyage to Australia on the Endeavor. They needed a navigator and were reaching out to this list for one. Seemed nobody could afford the six weeks off of work to do it, but I could, so I applied for the job and it even went so far as the interview stage. (They told me that they couldn't hire someone outside the EU.) In anticipation, I read everything I could about the original voyage, and discovered that they'd used the lunar method on that trip. It was then that I realized I was well and truly over my head, and it's a good thing they didn't hire me. Recently, I've gotten back into it.

-Ed Falk

On 9/2/22 7:45 PM, Modris Fersters wrote:

 Hi, Edward Falk!
 
 You wrote: /“//Without a calculator, it's hella complicated. I've been 
 reading the 1902 edition of Bowditch lately. The corrections include 
 referencing 13 different tables. With a calculator, it's not so bad.”/
 
 You are absolutely wrong about complexity of lunar calculations “in 
 paper format”. You studied 1902 edition of Bowditch. This edition 
 contains Chauvenet method of clearing lunars. This method is very 
 accurate, but was seldom practised, because it was invented after lunars 
 were popular at sea (and I also think— because this method is realy 
 quite odd and complicated).