NavList:

RE : https://NavList.net/m2.aspx/Oblateness-formulas-Andr%C3%A9sRuiz-jun-2013-g24265

and also :

"Nautical Almanac for 1994 pdf"
RE : https://NavList.net/m2.aspx/Nautical-Almanac-for-1994-pdf-FrankReed-jun-2013-g24263

and finally :

"Nitpicking on Moon Height Corrections"
RE : https://NavList.net/m2.aspx/Nitpicking-Moon-Height-Corrections-Couëtte-may-2013-g24183

******* ******* ******* ******* ****** ******* *******

Hello to all, and in particular to you Frank, Andrés and Paul !

Many Thanks to you Andrés and Frank for providing the Oblateness Formulas currently published in the US/UK Explanation part of the Nautical Almanac (NAL).

Frank, you earlier wondered which accuracy level these Formulas can reach ...

I therefore worked out again my previous examples and have published them as the 2 enclosures given here (same data : one under the .doc and the other under the .docx formats so that hopefully can read them).

As I have been treating "extreme cases" here, i.e. extreme Moon Declination case with (almost) extreme sextant height, I am observing that the NAL Formulas published in the NAL are extremely accurate : no error above 0"5 !

Hence my question :

Are these NAL formulas "complete" in the sense that they contain only the 2 terms published (PA=HP cosH + OB, with OB= -0°.0032 sin²Lat cosH + 0°0032 sin(2Lat) cosZ sinH) in which case if the coefficient 0.°0032 were published with more figures, their accuracy would be "perfect"), or are they rather the first 2 terms of a highly converging series (which I am suspecting) ?

Any reply on that one ?

Thanks again for the opportunity to dig out things on NavList ...

Best Regards to all

Antoine M. "Kermit"

----------------------------------------------------------------
NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
Members may optionally receive posts by email.
To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
----------------------------------------------------------------