Next message: Herbert Prinz: "Re: "100 Problems in Celestial Navigation""
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:21:30 -0800, David Weilacher wrote:
>I bought this book years back and gave up on it because it lacks proofs for the answers given. I had considered using this forum to help but couldn't figure out how to do that without infringing on the author's well deserved copyright.
>
>OTOH, answers 5-10nm different than his, aren't particularly unreasonable. HO229, HO249, and various plotting programs, etc, can have that kind of variation between them. Even using the same tables, a sight reduction form can introduce differences.
>
Is that really so? I have always considered it to indicate
sextant-reading errors if I came out more than a mile from actual (GPS)
location. 5-10 seems excessive for different reduction methods from the
same data. Am I taking your meaning correctly?
I haven't tried all those table-based methods, but have used
calculators and a spreadsheet program, the latter based on the analytic
reduction method in the Nautical Almanac.
Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a
"Accordions don't play 'Lady of Spain.' People play 'Lady of Spain."
