Re: dip, dip short, distance off with buildings, etc.

• Previous message: Ilya vtaroian: "Venus, again..."
• Maybe in reply to: Frank Reed: "dip, dip short, distance off with buildings, etc."
• Next in thread: Frank Reed: "Re: dip, dip short, distance off with buildings, etc."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Using a value for lift due to refraction between Franks 0.15' per nautical
mile, and lift in feet = distance in nautical miles squared * .287, I solved
for new values for the Bowditch Table 15 formula.

Try replacing .0002419 with .0002001, and .7349 with .6079.

I have done three trial runs with the new values, and they seem to approach
reality with the average of mean refraction values derived from the two
methods above, a least when height of eye is 0.

I would be very interested in feedback.

Thanks

Bill

• Previous message: Ilya vtaroian: "Venus, again..."
• Maybe in reply to: Frank Reed: "dip, dip short, distance off with buildings, etc."
• Next in thread: Frank Reed: "Re: dip, dip short, distance off with buildings, etc."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]