NavList:

   

Reply

In a message to the list, earlier today, I asked for help about the
following question.

"There's a further minor-matter arises, in which any members who has access
to a pre-1828 version of Norie's may be able to help. In Norie's 1816 text
about Mendoza's method, which I quoted earlier, He mentions adding "the
proportional logarithm of the Moon's correction (XXX)". In my own, early
20th century edition of Norie's, table XXX just gives the Moon correction,
in minutes and seconds, not the proportional log. of that correction. This
presents no real problem, because there's a table of proportional logs
elsewhere, so the required number can be found by a two-step procedure.

It seems that even as early as 1828 (in the Mystic version), Norie's table
XXX was the same as in mine. So I ask if anyone can tell me if, in  an
earlier version of Norie's, (perhaps in the edition current in 1816) table
XXX contains the Moon correction in minutes and seconds, or whether it
contains the proportional log of that correction, so the step in Mendoza's
method can be mode in one go. Conceivably, it might offer columns for both.

Perhaps I have simply misunderstood Norie's text about the Mendoza method,
and he intendedd a two-step lookup from the start.

Please don't send me copies of that table XXX: just a few words about what
it contains, is all I am after."

=================

Now I find, after a more careful reading of Norie's text, and examining the
layout of his standard form for lunars, that I was indeed misunderstanding
what Norie was stating. In a list of items to be added together, one of
those items was- "the proportional logarithm of the Moon's correction
(XXX)". I had taken that to read that table XXX contained the proportional
log of the Moon's correction: but the evidence shows that to be wrong.

What he was saying was that you should use table XXX to find the
correction, then use another table (XXXIV, in fact, though Norie doesn't
say so) to obtain the prop. log. of the correction. With that meaning, it's
no surprise that table XXXV remained the same in the early 20th century as
it was in 1816 and 1828, and there's no discrepancy with Norie's standard
form for calculating lunars. All is now understood, and I withdraw my
request for help on that matter.

George.

================================================================
contact George Huxtable by email at george@huxtable.u-net.com, by phone at
01865 820222 (from outside UK, +44 1865 820222), or by mail at 1 Sandy
Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
================================================================

   

Reply