NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Why do we ocean navigators defer to 249 when229isbetter?
From: Gary LaPook
Date: 2014 Sep 2, 12:26 -0700
From: Bruce J. Pennino <NoReply_Pennino@fer3.com>
To: garylapook@pacbell.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 3:11 PM
Subject: [NavList] Re: Why do we ocean navigators defer to 249 when229isbetter?
From: Gary LaPook
Date: 2014 Sep 2, 12:26 -0700
OR, if you want an even thinner celestial navigation calculation method, including a long term almanac, just make a flat Bygrave computer. All you need is located here:
gl
From: Bruce J. Pennino <NoReply_Pennino@fer3.com>
To: garylapook@pacbell.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 3:11 PM
Subject: [NavList] Re: Why do we ocean navigators defer to 249 when229isbetter?
By the way, in some bookstore or online , is it possible to buy the original H.O. 208 manual, Dreisonstok? Letcher's book is pretty good , but I don't like carrying it around . And I really don't want to photocopy or print 80 pages. Ween's LOP 1927 is 51 small /medium pages.
Also, I often check my 249 sight reduction with my TI 30.....sto1,2,3 go! Really quick.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Bill B wrote:
On 9/1/2014 5:41 PM, Jackson McDonald wrote:
> Are there any advantages to using any of these tabular methods as
> opposed to the Law of Cosines method?
To paraphrase Frank Reed, "Computing power is cheap." A NA and $10
TI30XA does it all.
Score 1 for the cosine method.
Current tabular methods can be done manually if you can add and subtract
DMS in the sexagesimal system. No electricity required.
Score 1 for tabular methods.
