NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Hav-Doniol checker
From: Hanno Ix
Date: 2015 Jun 18, 12:33 -0700
and I struggled with it. Also the choice of t vs LHA caused me some headache.
I though of adding a legend that explains how to expand the ranges but
I could not find the proper wording hoping the user knows that anyway
H
From: Hanno Ix
Date: 2015 Jun 18, 12:33 -0700
Andres,
you are absolutely correct about the limitations of the azimuth diagram,by mental analysis or observation as you mentioned.
Legends are, as you know, frequently included in maps and a common
Legends are, as you know, frequently included in maps and a common
way to communicate to the navigator.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Andrés Ruiz <NoReply_AndresRuiz@fer3.com> wrote:
With this fantastic longhand SR method there are to approaches for Hc and Zn:The computation formulas are fine for all the cases: Hanno's for Hc, and Bergman's for Zn
- by computation
- by Hanno's azimuth diagram
I prefer a mixed method for SR:
- Hc by Hannos's haversine formula,
- and Zn by Hanno's Zn(dec, t, Hc) diagram
As I said, first works fine for all cases, but the diagram has its limitations. Why?, because is based on the sin t * cos dec = sin Z * cos Hc equation.Z calculated in such a way is cuadrantal; 0 <= Z <= 90º, is E/W as the meridian angle is. The other limitation is that 0 <= LHA <= 360º or -180º <= t <= 180º and the diagram has values for t between 0 and 90º.Of course if you take the approximate Z of the body while is observed the undetermination is solved.Give me a little time to finish my tutorial and analysis test, and I will send to NavList the results, with my proposal.best regards.
--
