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: Table 8, Bowditch
    From: Ark Shvetsky
    Date: 2009 Jan 13, 18:53 -0800

    Frank, you gave me� very clear, down-to-the-Earth� answers.� I thank you very much!
    ----- Original Message ----
    From: "frankreed@HistoricalAtlas.com" 
    To: NavList@fer3.com
    Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 6:07:38 PM
    Subject: [NavList 7042] Re: Table 8, Bowditch
    Ark, you asked:
    "Just wants to make it clear for myself :>: to calculate a distance to the 
    visible horizon I need to use statute miles, not nautical.� Is this a correct 
    No, I was just talking about a mistake that people sometimes make that causes 
    confusion because it seems to yield the table values without any refraction 
    correction. But not to worry: everything is nautical miles in navigation 
    "Also, just curious: radio waves and light wave are electromagnetic waves 
    which are differ in frequency.� Therefore, it means the refraction-wise high 
    frequency signal is refracted more.� Is it logarithmic or just a linear 
    correlation for refraction rate between low and high frequency waves?"
    The variation of refraction with frequency is called a "dipersion relation." 
    There are no simple rules for such things. In fact red light, which has a 
    longer wavelength, bends less than blue light which is opposite the apparent 
    rule for radio versus visible light.
    You also asked:
    "you also mentioned a temperature gradient in the low atmosphere as a factor 
    which may effect visible horizon's distance calc by 15-20%� Is it included in 
    the Table 8?.� If not, how to apply this correction factor to the 
    calculation?� Another table exist, I presume?"
    First, I said this wrong. It's maybe 10-20% (in many cases) of the correction 
    factor which is itself a number around 0.15 so the actual variation in the 
    distance to the horizon is much smaller: a couple of percent under common 
    conditions. But under somewhat more extreme meteorological conditions, it can 
    be much greater. In fact, if the temperature changes at just the right rate, 
    light rays will travel parallel to the Earth's surface, and, therefore, the 
    horizon is technically at infinite distance (visually it just vanishes in a 
    distant "fog"), and you could expect to see vessels and other objects dozens 
    of times farther away than normal. So how do we correct for this? The 
    suprising answer is that we can't. First of all, we can't measure the actual 
    temperature profile of the air between us and the horizon. And equally 
    important, this is just one type of variation in the refraction. In the real 
    world, there can be much more complex variations in
     atmospheric conditions resulting in mirages and so on. But even if we can't 
    correct for it, there is still a point to all of this. When you look at these 
    tables for distance to horizon, dip, and dip short, etc., you need to bear in 
    mind that they apply to mean conditions. In practice, dip and distance to the 
    horizon are somewhat variable.
    Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
    To post, email NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, email 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