Next message: Peter Fogg: "Re: Z tangent formula"
Actually, I would suggest that the Sharp nav calculator uses the same formula, truncated to 1 decimal place :)
John
live every day like it may be your last .. cause one day it will be
>snip<
>
> I've taken 3 sights at random to contrast a few different (?)
> methods of azimuth determination. The first comes from the problem
> Mike Burkes posed, that I worked out and posted here on the 2 July.
>
> Sun UL Azimuth - in decimal form, and to 3 decimal places if
> available 101 'Bennett book' azimuth tables 100.9
> Sharp nav. calculator 100.982 NavPac 100.985 Z tan
> formula
>
> The other two come from the first other worked sights to hand.
> Details available if anyone's interested.
>
> Miaplacidus Azimuth
> 183 'Bennett book' azimuth tables
> 182.6 Sharp nav. calculator
> 182.637 NavPac
> 182.665 Z tan formula
>
> Dubhe Azimuth
> 010 'Bennett book' azimuth tables
> 010.2 Sharp nav. calculator
> 010.238 NavPac
> 010.214 Z tan formula
>
> So I'm convinced, pending further tests, that the Z tan formula is
> a valid and accurate method for determination of azimuth. The small
> differences seem insignificant. It is not significantly more
> tedious or time consuming to calculate, given a good scientific
> calculator, than the other methods. This is because the calculator
> and NavPac require quite a lot of data to be entered to give a
> result.
>
> However, I do wonder whether one method or another does give a more
> precisely accurate result, although the answer is probably
> irrelevant for most practical purposes. Am hampered, admittedly, by
> not knowing what methods my calculator or NavPac use. Anyone have
> other formulas for comparison purposes? Or ideas on this?
