Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Were Short methods really Short?
    From: Greg Rudzinski
    Date: 2016 Aug 3, 14:22 -0700

    David,

    Short refers to the length of the tables needed to perform sight reduction rather than the length of time it takes to generate a calculated altitude and azimuth. Grading the various SR short tables is up to the needs of the individual navigator. I prefer to use a method which is as error free as possible, simple enough to do without the need of a form,  and fits into the sextant box. Pub 208, Weem's Line of Position Book, Pub 211, Ageton Classic, and Hav Doniol will get it done to 1' precision. I suggest learning them all and picking at least two favorites for the sextant box.

    Greg Rudzinski

    P.S. My favorites :Hav Doniol,  Ageton Classic, and Pub 208 (all three fit into the sextant box with room to spare).

    rom: David C
    Date: 2016 Aug 2, 16:22 -0700

    For many years I had a passive interest in Nautical Astronomy. I studied the subject and from time to time purchased a second hand book. I formed the impression that reducing sights by the hav-cosine formula and tables such as Norie was difficult/tedious/complicated/took a long time. On the other hand short methods were quick and easy. Having now worked sights by hav cosine/Norie, Ageton and Norie A-K I am not so sure.

    In this age of GPS and massive computing power it is difficult to put ourselves in the minds of navigators in the pre-electronic and pre-inspection table eras. Also I am writing this in armchair comfort and safety. However I would like to ask the question "Were short methods any shorter than hav cosine/Norie?"

    I took my work forms for hav-cosine and Ageton and stripped out the common elements - HS correction, determination of GMT, t and dec. I then merged the two forms. See the attached pdf.

    The pros of Ageton are the small physical size of the tables and the lack of interpolation. The cons (in my opinion) are that  there is little if any saving in work and it is probably easier to get confused.

    So, in hindsight, were short methods an improvement over the hav-cosine method?

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    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:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    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