Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    Name or NavList Code:
    Email:
       
    Reply
    Re: Optimal HoE?
    From: Brad Morris
    Date: 2019 Aug 20, 15:40 -0400
    Hello Tony

    Take a glance at the inside cover of your Nautical Almanac.

    Find the Dip Table.   It provides the correction in minutes for HoE, in meters.

    Let us first start with the very low HoE
    METERS     Correction
    1.0                -1.8
    1.5                -2.2
    2.0                -2.5
    2.5                -2.8
    From this we can observe as much as 0.4 minutes of correction for a HoE change of as little as 0.5 meters.

    Let us next examine the high HoE
    METERS       Correction
    19.3               -7.8
    19.8               -7.9
    20.4               -8.0
    From this we can observe 0.1 minute breakpoints, as the HoE is changed.  In this part of the table, we see a change 0.5 meters HoE resulting in only a 0.1' correction.

    Next examine the very high HoE
    METERS        Correction
    40                   -11.1
    42                   -11.4
    44                   -11.7
    From this we can observe a 0.3 correction for a 2 meter change in elevation, or 0.666 meters for every 0.1 breakpoint.

    I stand by my assertion that the HoE assessment is more critical as the HoE is smaller.  

    You mentioned your HoE as 1 meter, which is at the very low end of the table, with the greatest sensitivity.  But if you are off by some 50 centimeters to your precise HoE, you will get an error in dip correction.  At one point, I considered obtaining a very expensive elevation measurement device which depended upon a sealed hydrostatic pressure change.  It was extremely accurate, as memory serves me. The price stopped me, several hundred US dollars.

    I'm not sure where the 5% figure comes from.  I am sure Frank will help us out with his understanding.  It doesn't seem to align with the NA.

    Frank is obviously correct about anomalous refraction.  If you are on shore observing over very cold water, there will be AR.  As the land heats up, cool air is drawn onto shore by the updraft over land.  The temperature of the water and boundary air is going to be a bug bear. 

    As you lower the HoE, you bring the horizon closer, further exacerbating the situation.  The list has gone back and forth over waves.  If the horizon is very, very close, you most certainly will see them.  If the horizon is very far away, you will not.  But under what context do you correct for them and how.  The predominant advice is to ignore them and simply use the "average horizon".  If you are afloat, you are advised to take your observation at the crest of the wave.  How one is to then see the average horizon is beyond my understanding!!  Suffice to say under large waves, you may be forced to accept greater uncertainty.  

    Brad





    On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 3:04 PM Tony Oz <NoReply_TonyOz@fer3.com> wrote:

    Hello and thanks for the comments!

    Dear Brad, I measure my HoE (when on the groyne) by looking at the people near me - the place is very shallow, when someone is standing in the water "abeam" of me - I ask for his height and estimate my HoE from that. The very last session was taken with the HoE equal to 1.3 meters - it was the shortest intercept. Before that I simply guessed my HoE looking down the boulder I was sitting on - the sessions with the assumed HoE of 1 meter and 1.5 meters were with bigger intercepts - so I thought there must be significant sensitivity to the actual HoE. But may be that was only a coincidence too.

    Next time I'll take a gauge tape with me. :)

    Regarding the tide - in my part of Finnish Gulf (60°7.1'N 29°56.5°E) it is barely noticeable - unless it is strong wind on or off the shore. I always try to measure from the water itself. When I do sights from the beach I estimate my HoE more crudely - I measure how many heights of a man's figure (standing at the water's edge) fit between the visible horizon and man's head - and I assume HoE from the average height equaling to 1.8 meters. Apparently, as Frank supposes - the error is less critical in that case.

    Warm regards,
    Tony

    60°N30°E

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Get a NavList ID Code

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    A NavList ID Code guarantees your identity in NavList posts and allows faster posting of messages.

    Retrieve a NavList ID Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your NavList code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    NavList ID Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site