NavList:

   

Reply

George asked me to provide some pages from Tables Requisite 1781. I believe
that the link to Google provided by Paul solves George's request. Otherwise
please let me know. I have the 1781 edition in pdf and can distribute it to
NavList if desired. I think I found it on Google some years ago.
Regards
Kent N

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul Hirose" 
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 12:34 AM
To: 
Subject: [NavList] Re: Impossible lunar example. was: Short-cut lunars. was:
Clearing lunars

> Some time ago I pointed out the archive.org site as a source of
> documents, some of which are not available on Google. In this case, the
> 1781 Tables Requisite *is* on Google, but doesn't appear in a search!
>
> What I did was find it on archive.org:
> http://www.archive.org/details/tablesrequisite00longgoog
>
> Then I clicked the "PDF (Google.com)" link on the left. That leads to
> the book on Google.
>
> Or, you could download the whole book directly from archive.org. Click
> the little link marked "HTTP" on the left. That takes you to a page
> where the various file formats (PDF, etc.) are listed.
>
> The "Read Online" link has always been troublesome for me. It won't work
> at all with IE 8 -- the browser just sits there doing nothing. With
> Firefox it's really slow compared to the online reader at Google, and an
> incredible memory hog. After a few minutes on a low speed connection, my
> system's page file usage reached 670 MB. That's more than 3x the biggest
> number I've ever seen when not using the reader.
>
> Hint -- on archive.org, if you have a choice between a file digitized by
> Google, and one *not* digitized by Google, choose the latter. Several
> times I've seen the same publication digitized by more than one
> organization, and have always found the non-Google scan clearly
> superior. A maddening number of Google scans are sloppily done --
> blurry, mis-framed, etc.
>
> Another archive.org hint -- don't assume the year on the Web page is
> correct. Several times I've found these inaccurate. The only way to be
> sure is to look at the scan.
>
>
> Regarding astronomical time vs. civil time vs. nautical time, the memory
> trick I use is to imagine three watches, correctly set to those time
> scales, side by side at civil noon. If you arrange them in alphabetical
> order, they're also in chronological order:
>
> Aug 28 00h astronomical = Aug 28 12h civil = Aug 28 24h nautical
>
> --
> 
>
>
>
>
>

   

Reply