|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: Lunar stuff (was: Calculating accurate apparent-angles between stars)
From: Bruce Stark (Stark4677@XXX.XXX)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 17:29:36 EST
I do embarrass easily Fred, but pressure for an explanation of the Tables
isn't an embarrassment. It's a joy. I'm grateful for people's interest.
Issue #60 of the Navigation Foundation's "Navigator's Newsletter" has a paper
in which I explain the problems and ideas that led me to develop yet another
lunar method. The paper also shows the equation, and covers the turning
points in working it out from the cosine-haversine and old-style time-sight
formulas.
The Foundation has published other papers of mine and, perhaps more important
for the acceptance of the Tables, Robert Eno's "Field Assessment" of them.
Chances are I'd have gotten nowhere without the Navigation Foundation. And,
whatever the law says, it seems to me the papers they've published belong to
them.
Of the individual tables, though, only 2 and 3 were discussed, and that was
only to explain why "Q" isn't necessarily the exact arithmetic complement of
the "Logarithmic difference." I'd be glad to answer questions about any of
the individual tables.
Bruce
|