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: UTM to lat/lon formulas
    From: George Huxtable
    Date: 2003 Dec 14, 21:56 +0000

    In the light of the corrections that appear to have been made to my copy of
    the Seidelmann "Explanatory supplement to the Ephemiris", I asked Herbert
    Prinz if I could confidently proceed to convert between lat/long and URL,
    using those corrected instructions.
    He answered-
    >Yes, but only if you get rid of R(phi1) in equation 4.233-8, as I suggested.
    >Otherwise you need the formula for R(phi) for finding the meridianal
    >curvature in
    >the footpoint.
    But as I said,
    >> R appears without explanation, in eq 4.233-14, as R1 in the special case
    >> for angle phi1 as-
    >> R1 = a *  (1-Sqr(e)) / (1- Sqr(e) * Sqr(sin(phi1))) ^ (3/2),
    and surely, that's the curvature that's required for R1 in  4.233-8.
    So why couldn't I just calculate a value for R1 from that equaton, once
    phi1 has been calculated, and plug it into equation 4.233-8?
    In fact, I've done what Herbert suggested, and eliminated R1 from eq. 4.233-8.
    He added-
    >As long as we are at it, would you please check the following items  in
    >your copy?
    >On p. 400, equation 7.3-4. The correct formula is
    >     sin(HP) = R_Earth  /  r_Moon
    >But in my copy the second member got turned around, yielding the
    >reciprocal value.
    In my later copy the equation is just as you have written it above, so the
    correction has been made. In addition (which you didn't mention) the r_Moon
    term has been enclosed between two vertical bars, as in a modulus sign, for
    some reason.
    >On p.401, in equation 7.3-10, the semidiamer of the Moon is given as
    >     SD = arctan(R_Earth  /  r_Moon)
    >but I believe this should be the arcsin, shouldn't it?
    I agree it should, but the difference is quite infinitesimal for such an
    angle, the ratio
    sin 0.25deg / tan 0.25 deg
    differing from 1 by only one part in a million. It hasn't been amended in
    >I also cannot resist drawing your attention to the index as well as to p.
    >485, where
    >one finds the term "analemmic curve". I consider this the most intriguing
    >coinage in
    >American technical literature of the 20th century. But this is another
    >story (and
    >one of my pet peeves).
    On that topic, you can find such a curve, taken by time-lapse photography
    of the Sun over a year, on the front cover of Jean Meeus' "Astronomical
    Tables of the Sun, Moon and planets", 2nd ed.
    contact George Huxtable by email at george---.u-net.com, by phone at
    01865 820222 (from outside UK, +44 1865 820222), or by mail at 1 Sandy
    Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.

    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