|
|
From: Bill (no email)
Date: Mon Oct 31 2005 - 21:47:04 EST
George wrote:
> Anyway, it's becoming clearer how that discrepancy between the two methods
> arises, thanks to Paul. The Meeus formula, with its sign conventions chosen
> as stated, and its straighforward quadrant-adjustment, seems much more
> simple, and demands less in the way of mental contortion. I wonder if
> others agree.
No disagreement from me. If I recall, this all started with a question I
had regarding the pros and cons of George's formula vs. how the 229 folks
claim they calculate Z and Zn. Now I know, thanks to George's insights. And
as usually, gained more knowledge than I bargained for. Why mess with a
longer formula that has to many qualifiers once calculated?
I do maintain tabular methods are great for learning and backup. I spent
many hours inspecting the tables and began to see wonderful patterns
emerging as most of the spherical-trig math was predigested for me. And I
still love David Burch's slick trick for using the 229 tables to find the
real slope when plotting data points. LMS my foot. <G>
Bill
|