NavList:

   

Reply

Students with a maths background will prefer a single formula.


2015-06-13 9:56 GMT-03:00, Stan K :
> Last night I sent a message to Greg Rudzinski describing a really silly,
> even obvious, mistake I was making in using the Greg/Hanno hav-Doniol sight
> reduction method.  This got me thinking (something I apparently should do
> more often), so I went through the fer3 archive looking at all the posts
> regarding longhand sight reduction.  This is what came out of it:
>
>
> Greg presents two sets of formulas:
> 	n = hv(L - d)	m = hv(L + d)	same name
> 	n = hv(L + d)	m = hv(L - d)	contrary name
> where L (latitude) and d (declination) are unsigned (absolute) values, i.e.
> 40ºN and 40ºS would both be represented as 40º.
>
>
> Hanno appears to prefer a single set of formula, equivalent to the "same
> name" formulas above (though he uses one different letter), where L and d
> are signed, i.e. 40ºS would be represented as -40º.
>
>
> These are different approaches but are functionally equivalent.  What I
> would like to know is if anyone has a strong feeling as to whether either of
> these approaches would be better than the other one in a classroom
> environment, that is, whether students would have an easier time
> understanding, and instructors would have an easier time teaching, one
> compared to the other.
>
>
> Stan
>
>
> :
> http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/HavDoniol-StanK-jun-2015-g31655
>
>
>
>

   

Reply