NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Revisiting A thought question
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2007 Jan 2, 14:57 -0000
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2007 Jan 2, 14:57 -0000
After an earlier message from Guy- | "Having just enjoyed a wonderful weekend at Lake Tahoe elevation of | 6225 ft. I was thinking about what my height of eye would be if I were | taking sites at this elevation? Not that I would be lost on the Lake it is | 22 miles long by 12 miles wide." Bill commented- | It struck me in the shower this AM I may have missed one point that had been | discussed a year or two ago. That being reduced refraction in the thinner | air. I don't recall the consensus--if there was one. | | The broadcast barometric pressure will be adjusted to sea level. At 6225 | feet multiply the broadcast BP by .823 for local BP. The adjusted BP will | be off the almanac table, but gives you a starting point. Bill's second-thoughts (and I wonder if the shower helps to produce them) point to a better answer to Guy's question than his first-thoughts did. Refraction depends on air density, so for atmospheric refraction, Guy could simply take his sea-level value for refraction (adjusted for local temperature if he thinks fit) and then muliply it by 0.823. But Guy's question referred to height of eye, so was he asking about an appropriate dip correction, I wonder? If he gets a long enough view, along the lake, to see a true horizon, that is. Dip, mostly, just depends on the radius of the Earth and the height of eye, so altitude above sea level doesn't really affect it. Except that refraction, on the lower few feet of the atmosphere, between the level of the observer's eye and water-level, normally reduces that geometric dip by about 1 part in 12, (by 8%, say), so 92% remains, and this is the value you will find in the dip tables. That refraction component depends greatly on the local air-temperature gradient above the water surface, and is very variable. With the reduced local air-pressure at Lake Tahoe, that refraction component would itself be reduced to 83% of its sea-level value, so the correction to geometrical dip would now be 6.7% of the geometric dip, so the net result at Tahoe would be 93.3% of it, compared with the 92% that was listed in the tables. That is, the effictive dip for a farticular height of eye, will increase, by a factor of 93.3 / 92, or 1.4%, above the book-value. In almost all circumstances, that's quite negligible. George. contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222) or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---