NavList:

   

Reply

> From: "Frank Reed" 
> You changed one too many ones to twos when you edited the formula:
> toward the end, you've got "INT(B2)+2" where it should be "INT(B2)+1".
> That seems to be the only problem.

Thanks, that took care of the problem.

> And you asked:
> "As a follow up, what is your opinion of the Saemundssen quoted in
> Meeus for Hc to H (below) as opposed to 57"/tanH"
>
> Well, I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Those are not used
> for the same purpose.

Understood.  If I understand the former is for refraction from Hc to H, the
other for H to Ho.  The problem I have using H to Ho refraction adjustments
is the guessing game that can occur when working backwards.  A real concern
with low elevations, but then I avoid those for body-to-body sextant checks
as refraction in general becomes problematic.

This has little to no significance on the water, but may be of concern when
doing star-to-star or body-to-body distances--especially when and unnamed
person is disappointed if the measurements are 0!3 off over a 106d range.
(This despite his position that station pressure and temperature adjustment
are a waste of energy.) 

I had wondered about your highly-informed opinion on the best method for Hc
to Ho. Pretty well answered by, "If you have the table, you should *never*
use those fitted equations."

Bill



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To unsubscribe, send email to NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply