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
    Name or NavList Code:
    Email:
       
    Reply
    Re: Why are NA sight reduction tables not popular?
    From: Alexandre Eremenko
    Date: 2012 Apr 8, 11:08 -0400

    I would like to follow this discusion,
    But what is the formula (for the calculator) taught by the Power Squadron?
    Can anyone give me a link with this formula?
    (I know two formulas for sight reduction).
    
    My own opinion on various reduction methods is that a small
    calcuator with some formula is the best.
    If I want to minimize the weight of the things to carry,
    Complete Online Celestial Navigator is the best, it replaces NA,
    calculator and all tables but has smaler precision than other methods).
    
    I agree that NA reduction tables have the great advantage that
    you don't need a calculator, while NA you need anyway.
    This is the ony advantage, on my opinion.
    Important feature of the caclulator is sexagesimal input.
    I suppose my Casio fx-250 is the smallest calculator which has
    convenient sexagesimal input, the battery lasts for more than 10 years
    (really!)
    but unfortunaely this model is not made anymore.
    The model they replaced it with has muh less convenent sexagesimal
    input.
    
    Alex.
    
    On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Stan K wrote:
    
    >
    >
    > I personally like the Nautical Almanac Concise method, but I have heard it 
    is unpopular because it requires "three page openings". I don't find the 
    pages all that heavy .  I guess what is really being said is that it is more 
    subject to error because of the number of page openings.  I don't see it 
    myself.
    >
    > The Law of Cosines is being taught in the Power Squadron Junior Navigation 
    course, with the Nautical Almanac Concise method being added in the 
    Navigation course
    >
    > You really can't compare the Law of Cosines "calculator" method, regardless 
    of which formulae are used, with a tabular method like the Nautical Almanac 
    Concise method.  Let's face it, if you don't have a calculator or a computer, 
    the Nautical Almanac Concise method has the advantage over other tabular 
    methods in that everything you need, no matter where you are located, is 
    already included in the book you must have anyway, the Nautical Almanac.  
    Sure, it only gives 1 nm resolution, but I think its advantages outweigh its 
    disadvantages.
    >
    > As to why the Power Squadrons does not use the NA version of the Law of 
    Cosines formulae, that I do not know.
    >
    > Stan
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Geoffrey Kolbe 
    > To: NavList 
    > Sent: Sun, Apr 8, 2012 3:44 am
    > Subject: [NavList] Why are NA sight reduction tables not popular?
    >
    >
    > Frank said that he didn't know anyone who liked them (or words to that effect).
    >
    > Given that the NA tables  system is taught in Power Squadron
    > navigation classes, I would have thought that the biggest hurdle of
    > any system - becoming familiar with the method - would have been
    > overcome and made this method popular.
    >
    > The NA sight reduction system has the advantage of being angles all
    > the way, so you are not changing in and out of logs, and once you get
    > the hang of it, this method seems to be as quick as any.
    >
    > Any thoughts on why it is not popular?
    >
    > Lu Abel says that the "Law of Cosines" is what is being taught to the
    > Power Squadron these days as the principal method of sight reduction.
    > I went and had a look at the Power Squadron website and sure enough,
    > in the 'Nautical Tools' section, there is a handy little online sight
    > reduction program, showing the formulae used - and presumably taught
    > in Power Squadron classes.
    >
    > Now, there may be good reasons why the NA sight reduction tables are
    > not popular, but as was pointed out some years ago by Herbert Prinz,
    > the formulae given in the NA for sight reduction using a calculator
    > are the best formulae available for a number of reasons and I am
    > surprised that the Power Squadron do not teach those instead. The
    > formulae for Hc is the same, but the Power Squadron formula for Zn
    > blows up in polar regions, whereas the NA version does not.
    >
    > Geoffrey
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > : http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=118810
    >
    >
    >
    
    
    
    

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Get a NavList ID Code

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    A NavList ID Code guarantees your identity in NavList posts and allows faster posting of messages.

    Retrieve a NavList ID Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your NavList code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    NavList ID 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