NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Why are NA sight reduction tables not popular?
From: Gary LaPook
Date: 2012 Apr 8, 15:17 -0700
From: Gary LaPook
Date: 2012 Apr 8, 15:17 -0700
I agree completely! When they first included these tables in the N.A. I thought "neat" so I started working a problem with them. As I went along I said "WHAT?" .....then "HUH"...then "what the.." then finally I said "why the hell would somebody come up with such a complicated was to do this computation?" I never tried them again. I still wonder why they came up with such a complicated new table when perfectly good short tables had been available for many years and could have been included in the N.A. instead, Ageton is only about 10 pages longer as is Weems (I prefer Weems) and either is much easier to use. So here is my advice, use a razor blade to excise the tables from your N.A. and duct tape Weems (or Ageton) to the back cover. Back in 2009 I compared the various short table computations which are found at these links. It would be interesting if somebody would do the same computation with the N.A. tables and post it for comparison. http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/Fw-Chichesters-Calculations-LaPook-dec-2008-g6700 Correction, since Chichester added his watch error of 2:30 his watch was running slow, not fast on GMT. http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/Fw-Chichesters-Calculations-comparisons-sight-reduction-LaPook-dec-2008-g6760 http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/Fw-Chichesters-Calculations-SineCosine-method-LaPook-dec-2008-g6707 http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/Fw-Chichesters-Calculations-SineCosine-method-LaPook-dec-2008-g6720 http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/Fw-Chichesters-Calculations-SineCosine-method-LaPook-dec-2008-g6744 http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/Fw-Chichesters-Calculations-SineCosine-method-LaPook-dec-2008-g6745 http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/Fw-Chichesters-Calculations-SineCosine-method-LaPook-dec-2008-g6785 gl --- On Sun, 4/8/12, Robert Eno <enoid@northwestel.net> wrote:
|