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: Santa Barbara 2016: Venus sight
    From: Stan K
    Date: 2016 Dec 13, 17:08 -0500

    Looking at your spreadsheet, I see that you apply altitude corrections sequentially, showing the result at each step.  When you reach semi-diameter, you subtract it from the previous value.  In a sextant telescope, we essentially treat all planets as point sources, with semi-diameters of zero, by "splitting" the planet with the horizon.  But to allow semi-diameter to be considered in an observed altitude calculation, as if we had a much more powerful telescope, we would have to consider whether we are observing the upper of lower limb.  You subtract, implying the upper limb.  Why do you do that?  I note that the USNO Celestial Navigation Data site adds semi-diameter (to refraction and parallax) to get the sum, implying the lower limb, with no further explanation.  That is also a source of confusion for me.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Peter Hakel <NoReply_PeterHakel@fer3.com>
    To: slk1000 <slk1000@aol.com>
    Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2016 8:20 pm
    Subject: [NavList] Santa Barbara 2016: Venus sight

    Last Tuesday evening in Santa Barbara I had the pleasure of a face-to-face meeting with a NavList member - Greg Rudzinski. He generously gave me a few goodies - including a printout of Hanno Ix’s azimuth diagram and a haversine table. I decided to reduce my Venus sight from the day before with the non-electronic hav-Doniol method.
    AP: Latitude = N 34° 25', Longitude = W 119° 40'

    From Excel:
    Venus on 2016 December 6, at 01:29:38 UT
    GHA: 156° 51.9’
    Dec: S 22° 51.9’
    Ho: 22° 45’
    Hc: 22° 42’
    Intercept: 3’ Toward
    Azimuth: 217°
    For the Hc I used the haversine tables posted some time ago on Navlist, which are in increments of 2’; I obtained Hc = 22° 42’, so that agrees.
    The azimuth diagram gave me 37, which I added to 180 to obtain 217. Using a T-Plotter helps avoid making marks on the diagram, thus preserving it for future repeated use (see attached jpg's). Coincidentally, in this case the diagram wasn’t really needed; since the declination (step 1) and Hc (step 3) round to the same whole-degree value of 23, therefore the azimuth angle (step 4) comes out equal to LHA (step 2), which is 37.

    Peter Hakel

    Attached File:

    Attached File:

    Attached File:

    Attached File:

    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