NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Wolfgang Köberer
Date: 2009 Mar 2, 10:38 +0100
Please excuse my late
reply. I could only make a scan of the relevant pages – which is attached
– today. The scan contains the whole paragraph dealing with calculating
the true distance. The “ sum sign”, as you will see, is not a “sum
sign” but an abbreviation.
By the way: I checked a
few earlier and contemporary German manuals to find out whether they also
recommend using Dunthorne’s formula only within certain limitations, but
found no similar cautions. My search was limited to books so far, there may still
be some explanation in articles in the “Annalen der Hydrographie…”
or the like.
Best regards
Wolfgang
Dr.
Wolfsgangstr. 92
D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
Tel: + 49 69 95520851
Fax: + 49 69 558400
e-mail: koeberer@navigationsgeschichte.de
Von:
Gesendet: Montag, 2. März 2009
09:44
An:
Betreff: [NavList 7505] Re:
Possible limitaion for lunar distance measurement
Herbert Prinz wrote [7495]: ....To understand the criticism
we would need to see the
proposed alternatives, i.e. no. 21 or 23.
Unfortunately the copy I have of page 386 of the German
manual from 1906 is in bad quality and I can't accurately read the formulas 21
and 23. Beside that it appears to be a "sum-sign" in these
formulas, for which I don't have any explaination.
If I understood the previous discussion correctly Wolgang
Köberer might have the 1906 issue. Wolgang, will you kindly provide the formulas
21 and 23 and also look for what the assumed "sum-sign" could mean.
Kent N
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
