Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: Revisiting A thought question
    From: George Huxtable
    Date: 2007 Jan 2, 14:57 -0000

    After an earlier message from Guy-
    | "Having just enjoyed a wonderful weekend at Lake Tahoe elevation of
    | 6225 ft. I was thinking about what my height of eye would be if I
    | taking sites at this elevation? Not that I would be lost on the Lake
    it is
    | 22 miles long by 12 miles wide."
    Bill commented-
    | It struck me in the shower this AM I may have missed one point that
    had been
    | discussed a year or two ago.  That being reduced refraction in the
    | air.  I don't recall the consensus--if there was one.
    | The broadcast barometric pressure will be adjusted to sea level.  At
    | feet multiply the broadcast BP by .823 for local BP.  The adjusted
    BP will
    | be off the almanac table, but gives you a starting point.
    Bill's second-thoughts (and I wonder if the shower helps to produce
    them) point to a better answer to Guy's question than his
    first-thoughts did.
    Refraction depends on air density, so for atmospheric refraction, Guy
    could simply take his sea-level value for refraction (adjusted for
    local temperature if he thinks fit) and then muliply it by 0.823.
    But Guy's question referred to height of eye, so was he asking about
    an appropriate dip correction, I wonder? If he gets a long enough
    view, along the lake, to see a true horizon, that is.
    Dip, mostly, just depends on the radius of the Earth and the height of
    eye, so altitude above sea level doesn't really affect it. Except that
    refraction, on the lower few feet of the atmosphere, between the level
    of the observer's eye and water-level, normally reduces that geometric
    dip by about 1 part in 12, (by 8%, say), so 92% remains, and this is
    the value you will find in the dip tables. That refraction component
    depends greatly on the local air-temperature gradient above the water
    surface, and is very variable.
    With the reduced local air-pressure at Lake Tahoe, that refraction
    component would itself be reduced to 83% of its sea-level value, so
    the correction to geometrical dip would now be 6.7% of the geometric
    dip, so the net result at Tahoe would be 93.3% of it, compared with
    the 92% that was listed in the tables. That is, the effictive dip for
    a farticular height of eye, will increase, by a factor of 93.3 / 92,
    or 1.4%, above the book-value. In almost all circumstances, that's
    quite negligible.
    contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com
    or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
    or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
    To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, send email to NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    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 Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    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