NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: dip, dip short, distance off with buildings, etc.
From: Bill B
Date: 2006 Jan 12, 16:41 -0500
From: Bill B
Date: 2006 Jan 12, 16:41 -0500
Frank wrote: > Finally, the practical value of this is not that we can start calculating > dip and all the rest based on the specific temperature profile since, of > course, we don't usually have access to the temperature profile. Instead it > provides a means of assessing possible errors arising from using the tables > "naively", and it leaves open the option of calculating different versions of > the tables when circumstances might require them. Three quick points: 1. Should some effort be made by the publisher to update the Bowditch "system" to reflect more current values of refraction etc.? 2. As noted in previous discussions of T15 (formerly T9), there is an error in the currently published equation behind the T15 tables. The second term is not under the square-root symbol. Tables are OK as computed, formula not so. 3. While we pay it lip service, has anyone contacted the publisher/editor of Bowditch's American Practical Sailor to point out the errors compared to the earlier versions (for example T15 equation)? Bill PS Sadly IMHO, does in matter a whit when GPS is the blind King? Carver 30's with flying bridges and more canvas than a comparable sailcraft punching in "go to waypoint" then slipping below--bridge unmanned--to flip up the 12V blender and cavort before impacting the breakwater between the departure and destination point? Just another Darwin Award candidate?