Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


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

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Name or NavList Code:
    H.R. Mills on setting/rising bodies
    From: Christian Scheele
    Date: 2010 Jan 24, 23:07 +0200

    I am busy working through H.R. Mills' "Positional Astronomy and 
    Astro-Navigation Made Easy" (First edition 1978). I can highly recommend this 
    book which certainly lives up to its title. Is anybody else familiar with it? 
    There is section called "Angles of stars as they rise and set, with respect 
    to the horizon". (Obviously, a mostly theoretical topic as "real navigators" 
    might be quick to point out to me). I find one step in Mill's representation 
    of a deriviation of a general formula for these angles confusing. Perhaps I 
    have missed something.
    Mills presents his model, illustrated with an opening diagram. It shows three 
    circles, each representing the same celestial body at different altitudes, 
    against a horizon line. Placed one after the other in a straight line path 
    that cuts the horizon at an acute angle, they touch each other 
    tangententially so that the lower limb of the highest circle and the upper 
    limb of the lowest circle graze the horizon, while the remaining circle in 
    between them transits the horizon. The diagram is completed by verticals,  
    horizontals and parallels relative to the straight line track of the three 
    circles and are marked d(alt), d(Az), and d(HA).(cos{dec}) respectively. The 
    angle x between the horizontal line and the parallel relative to the straight 
    line track of the three circles, i.e. the angle between d(alt) and 
    d(HA).(cos{dec}) represents the angle of rising and setting of the body 
    signified by the three cirlces.
    Departing from this model, Mills derives a formula for this angle x so that cos x = sin (lat)/ cos (dec).
    I won't go into all the steps.
    Mills begins his exposition of the deriviation by stating two well-known formulas he uses as premises:
    sin(alt) = sin(lat).sin(dec) + cos(lat).cos(dec).cos(HA)   (1)
    sin x = d(alt)/(d{HA}.cos{dec})   (2)
    Mills then differentiates (1) to yield:
    cos(alt).d(alt)= cos(lat).cos(dec).sin(HA).d(HA)   (3)
    So far so good. But isn't d(cos{HA})/d(HA) = -sin(HA) and not sin(HA)? 
    (Although it might not be important if the term is squared in a later step). 
    Or is this a mistype?
    From (2) and (3) Mills yields:
    sin x = d(alt)/(d{HA}.cos{dec}) = (cos{lat}.sin{HA})/cos(alt)  (4)
    How did Mills get to (4)? How did he arrive at d(HA) = cos(alt) and d(alt) =  
    cos(lat).cos(dec).sin(HA)? Did I miss a basic rule governing differential 
    calculus? Please get back to me if you find this interesting. I haven't 
    scoured the internet yet for an enlightening review.
    Christian Scheele
    Cape Town

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Get a NavList ID Code

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    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 Settings

    NavList ID Code:

    Custom Index

    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