NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: S-table and long term almanacs
From: Stan K
Date: 2015 Feb 9, 13:47 -0500
From: Stan K
Date: 2015 Feb 9, 13:47 -0500
Hanno,
FWIW, NA table reductions (and 249, 229, 214, 211, 208, and S-Table) can be checked using the SR Methods tool of Celestial Tools.
The 1993 and 1999 editions of the United States Power Squadrons Navigation course have supplements about the development of the rules and corrections of the NA method (8 pages in 1993, 4 pages in 1999). They are copyrighted documents, so I'm not sure what it is proper to do. Any suggestions from the List?
Stan
-----Original Message-----
From: Hanno Ix <NoReply_HannoIx@navlist.net>
To: slk1000 <slk1000@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 9, 2015 1:21 pm
Subject: [NavList] Re: S-table and long term almanacs
Even if the NA tables are widely accepted and used I don't think they are widely understood. I cannot find much detail but they appear to be an attempt to simplify sight reduction by publishing a list of pre-calculated spherical triangles and a method to interpolate/extrapolate linearly to the actual situation. The idea seems sound, the execution less so: if you use the published work forms, for instance, you will find yourself quickly in a mess of tables, additions and subtractions with numerous opportunities to blunder and no means to check your work. Compare this with G. Rudzinski's index card approach!
To properly assess the merits of the NA approach I need to be able to compare it with the strict formulas for Hc and Z, and to estimate residual errors and their dependency on L, d, and LHA. I have yet to find a clear description of the geometrical considerations, the assumptions made and the approximations chosen for the NA approach. I would be oblidged if you could hint where to find such material.
From: Hanno Ix <NoReply_HannoIx@navlist.net>
To: slk1000 <slk1000@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 9, 2015 1:21 pm
Subject: [NavList] Re: S-table and long term almanacs
Geoffrey,
reading this with interest.
The widespread use of the NA tables is not a significant assessment of their actual quality or practicality.
To be a little cynical for a moment: There was once a method of transportation - widely accepted and used : buggies and horses. Why, then, would one have entered the rarefied halls of engineering and thermodynamics to create an automobile?
I sense there are some extraneous reasons for the use of those tables: they may be the favorite method of a prominent club or training center, maybe because of some didactic concern or the availability of study material.
I sense there are some extraneous reasons for the use of those tables: they may be the favorite method of a prominent club or training center, maybe because of some didactic concern or the availability of study material.
To properly assess the merits of the NA approach I need to be able to compare it with the strict formulas for Hc and Z, and to estimate residual errors and their dependency on L, d, and LHA. I have yet to find a clear description of the geometrical considerations, the assumptions made and the approximations chosen for the NA approach. I would be oblidged if you could hint where to find such material.
So far I have seen only these tables and work forms, and so far I am not impressed.
Regards
H
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Stan K
<NoReply_StanK@navlist.net> wrote:
The NA tables are currently the only tabular method taught as part of the United States Power Squadrons courses, on the theory that they are contained in a book you require anyway. They have taught other tabular methods in the past, and still publish a Sight Reduction Methods "learning guide", which includes compact HO 211 (Ageton-Bayless), HO 229, and HO 249.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey Kolbe < NoReply_GeoffreyKolbe@navlist.net>
To: slk1000 <slk1000---.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 4, 2014 3:57 am
Subject: [NavList] Re: S-table and long term almanacs
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Carl Roberts <NoReply_Roberts@navlist.net> wrote:
maybe dr Kolb could boot the NA reduction and include Alan Bayless or S-Table.There is a perception that "nobody uses the NA tables" and so they should be replaced by something else. However, my feeling is that outside the rarefied halls of this list's discussions, the NA tables are widely accepted - and used!
Geoffrey Kolbe
