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: Time of meridian passage accuracy
    From: Antoine Cou�tte
    Date: 2009 Oct 16, 12:26 -0700

    Dear Andres,
    In [Navlist 10132] , you did requested feedback on your results and comments in [Navlist 10065].
    Here are just a few , (although unsolicited) :
    -	The results you published in [Navlist 10065] as regards both Culmination 
    Height / Time are perfect. Your indicated values are 18h14m18s / 46d15'68196, 
    while to "higher" (what does it really mean anyway ??? ) accuracy ([Navlist 
    10041] ) they are :  18h14m18.05s / 46d15'715
    -	Your interpretation of the difficulty to get adequate values for both LAN 
    Time and Height looks very true to me. A Formula like the one published by 
    Jim cannot sensibly be used since current "exotic" environment is too far 
    from the "usual environment" which permits/authorizes its approximations.
    -	Your remark on the "always good results" obtained by either "brute force" 
    Marcq Saint Hilaire method, or the more elegant/sophisticated Kaplan 
    algorithm are very true : such methods will "almost always" work very well 
    (only exception occurs when azimuths are too narrow, which is most often the 
    case for most of the LAN's),
    -	It brings back an interesting point: whatever the algorithm you use to deal 
    with LAN data, these data are BY NATURE somewhat inaccurate since the 
    azimuths remain (far) too narrow most of the time. NO WAY – that I know 
    of – to go around that hard fact, although (and again) : "better one 
    LAN than no LAN at all" !
    -	One query from my side. What do you exactly mean in your second conclusion 
    of [Navlist 10065] when you wrote : 
    "For obtain the Hmax, the Least squares fitting H = a0+a1*t+a2*t2 is OK. The 
    maximum gives:  t max = -a1/(2a2) and  Hmax = a0-a2t2. It retains the 
    asymmetrical nature of the curve." 
    I am just curious here about the meaning of the very last sentence ( it 
    "retains" ). Would not it seem that, by nature, and even with a non zero term 
    in t**1, a second degree curve (a parabola) is always fully symmetric ?
    Thank you for your Kind Attention and
    Best Regards
    Antoine M. "Kermit" Couette
    NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
    Or post by email to: 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