NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Poor St. Hilaire
From: Henry Halboth
Date: 2007 Oct 27, 11:27 -0700
From: Henry Halboth
Date: 2007 Oct 27, 11:27 -0700
Hi All, I wonder if we are all talking about the same thing. The St. Hilaire method solution as originally proposed was somewhat complicated, necessitated 2- distict operations and required more attention to signs; it used only sines and cosines. A later method was entitled originally the "cosine-haversine method" - same result, however, simpler solution. When I learned the Marc St. Hilaire solution it was actually the cosine-haversine method. This is obviously no big deal, but I thought it interesting from the point of view that these solution methods were sometimes separated in older texts, i.e., perhaps 1931 and earlier, in that the latter method was not actually credited to the old boy. Regards, Henry --- John Karlwrote: > > > Gary is right about everything he said - almost. > > The Sumner 2-point method and the St. Hilaire method > take exactly the > same amount of calculation, each solving two > equations of the same > complexity. And Henry agrees. > > So all the fuss is about why we use St. Hilaire. My > original point, > 19 posts ago, was that all the books that I have > seen either don't > explain why we use St. Hilaire, or they explain it > incorrectly. > > John Karl > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---