NavList:

   

Reply

--- Mike Burkes  wrote:

> yes I know what you mean about not having the specifics in Gray's
> and other forms.

And I just realized that my own form doesn't have a space for SHA (I
don't think I was doing star sights when I put that one together), so
I'm going to have to find room for that without the form running off
the page (it also dawned on me that I used a font from a script-writing
program for that one and it might not format correctly if you don't
have it installed on your end (?)).

> Complete as the forms may be you still pretty much have to be aware
> of the missing items e.g. the R,LL,UL have to be expanded into the 3
> items for the Moon

Well, that might work... but you also have R (I assume "refraction"?)
and LL/UL considerations with a Moon sight too. I'd prefer separate
entries for those, but if you're doing sight reductions on a regular
basis maybe it becomes natural to remember to add those on as-needed.

> And we haven't even discussed the Davis Artificial Horizon form
> where you have to start out with 2s, etc.

If I remember right, for the sextant corrections seems like you do the
index correction as you would for a "normal" sight, and then divide
that angle by 2 to account for the double-reflection (and dip is
ignored because it cancels out for the same reason).

From there Ha is corrected as you normally would, though the value also
depends on whether you're doing a limb-to-limb shot or an overlapping
one with the artificial horizon.

But for an AH sight I think I'd come up with a specific form for that
one too...  ;-)

> Your form looks pretty good but I notice it is not columnar but the
> main thing it works for you.

Maybe not "columnar" in the strictest sense, but I tried to make it
flow logically down the page (and tried to put most of the intermediate
calculations off to the side). It was also designed to allow a fair
amount of "white space" for doing the intermediate math, too.

It also dawns on me that since this one was designed with sun sights in
mind, it probably wouldn't work especially well for multiple sights
(i.e. stars, Sun/Moon) where a columnar format would probably be
preferred - so I think I'll tackle that one next.

--
GregR




--- Mike Burkes  wrote:

>
>
> Hi Greg, yes I know what you mean about not having the specifics in
> Gray's and other forms. Complete as the forms may be you still pretty
> much have to be aware of the missing items e.g. the R,LL,UL have to
> be expanded into the 3 items for the Moon and those items can be
> obtained from the Naut. Almanac and/or cel nav text. The altitude
> correction forms are  the limiting factors. And we haven't even
> discussed the Davis Artificial Horizon form where you have to start
> out with 2s, etc. In other words the user has to adapt the form to
> the specific body, artificial horizon, etc. Your form looks pretty
> good but I notice it is not columnar but the main thing it works for
> you. Mixter's forms in his Primer are also excellent and are not
> columnar but his and yours most definitely can be adapted to notebook
> paper maybe 2 per side? Yes Gray will definitely keep you out of
> trouble for a while ha! It is most enjoyable. Keep us posted on your
> results.
> Mike B
> >
> > --- Mike Burkes  wrote:
> >
> >> Try this one from Leonard Gray's "100 Problems in Cel Nav".
> >
> > This is really a good sight reduction worksheet (and fairly close
> to
> > the one that I came up with for my own use), but unless I missed
> > something there's no line for the Moon H.P. correction - so it
> really
> > won't work as an "all-purpose" form (Latitude by Polaris and LAN
> are
> > their own animals, so they each get a separate worksheet just for
> > them).
> >
> > I also like the way his form has Assumed Latitude, LHA, and Dec
> shaded
> > to make them easy to find when entering the sight reduction tables
> (I
> > have them in bold on my own form).
> >
> > And since we're sharing our own personal worksheets, here's a copy
> of
> > the one that I came up with that (so far) seems to work the best
> for
> > me.
> >
> > --
> > GregR
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Mike Burkes  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi Greg, Try this one from Leonard Gray's "100 Problems in Cel
> Nav".
> >> The only duplication I see is Ho on Lines 7 and bottom unless I am
> >> missing something. HTH.
> >> Mike Burkes
> >>
> >> Has anyone ever seen (or come up with themselves) a sight
> reduction
> >> worksheet that doesn't require duplicating any data (i.e. filling
> in
> >> a value more than once)?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I've tried to come up with something myself, but right now I
> really
> >> don't think it can be done - especially since calculations have to
> be
> >> done on both Hs (to get Ho) and Hc (as tabulated) to get final
> values
> >> for finding the length of the intercept. But if anyone's found
> >> something that works I'd definitely be interested in taking a look
> at
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> GregR
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger.
> >>
> >
>
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_062008
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger.
>
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_062008
>
> >
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply