NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Bowditch (2002) Table 17
From: Stan K
Date: 2012 Apr 30, 22:03 -0400
From: Stan K
Date: 2012 Apr 30, 22:03 -0400
The more I look at page 560 of Bowditch 2002, the more I think this is another error, like the formula for Table 15 not having enough terms in the radicand.
It says "The table is entered with the corrected vertical angle and the height of eye of the observer in nautical miles; the distance in yards is taken directly from the table." The italics are original, but the table is entered with the height of eye in feet.
In the description of the formulas, it says "h is the height of eye of the observer in feet". At this point it seems like the height of eye should be converted to nautical miles. Then it says "ds is the distance to the waterline of the object in nautical miles." This may be correct, just not converted to yards, but I'm too tired to think about it.
Stan
It says "The table is entered with the corrected vertical angle and the height of eye of the observer in nautical miles; the distance in yards is taken directly from the table." The italics are original, but the table is entered with the height of eye in feet.
In the description of the formulas, it says "h is the height of eye of the observer in feet". At this point it seems like the height of eye should be converted to nautical miles. Then it says "ds is the distance to the waterline of the object in nautical miles." This may be correct, just not converted to yards, but I'm too tired to think about it.
Stan
