NavList:

   

Reply

--- Peter Fogg  wrote:

> It strikes me as quite amazing, but seems to be true, that you
> can work out fairly accurately the height of your local cliff
> via this process of making and reducing celestial observations.

Makes sense though, because in that case you'd just be solving for a
different unknown in the equation than we're used to working with (i.e.
He instead of an intercept/azimuth). But I'd guess you'd also have to
have a very accurate position of the cliff first, otherwise all the
other calculations would be right out the window.

> I never thought of tidal influence but like your situation, tidal
> movements around here are fairly small.

It's entirely possible that I either measured the height of my location
at a tidal extreme (and then just got lucky and took most of the other
shots at about the same state of tide), or maybe just happened to catch
one of those rare extreme tide ranges.

And at least it's good to have my theory confirmed others on the list,
this celnav stuff can be a lot like golf sometimes...  ;-)

--
GregR


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply