mikestar13 wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 10:48 am
If we are going to tweak the minor angle strength, now is a convenient time. Are you contemplating an orb change for some/all minor angles? That would be dead easy. A different type of curve would be more complicated.
Yeah, it's the complicated one. Since you said now is convenient to discuss, I'll stream my thinking and see where it goes.
Minor angle orbs reach at least to 2° - in fact, for transits and quotidian hits, that's the clear breakoff in close timing. (In that sense, one would think this might be a Class 1 boundary, though gnawing background voices mutter that this is suspect.)
Minor angle orbs likely don't exist beyond 3° (if they last that long). An early '80s study I did seemed to define that as the EP-a breakoff of effectiveness, and it matches what I was used to seeing on Z/N. If it's "don't exist beyond," then either it's a Class 3 bottom, or there is no Class 3 as such.
I could summarize these as saying (here's the problem with the curve shape): These are still very strong at 2° and plummet toward "gone" very fast after that.
I experimented with setting minor angle Class 1 at 2°, Class 2 at 3°, no Class 3. That would solve the problem except for the steepness of the slope at different parts of the curve. For example, if 2° is the bottom of Class 1, it should have a % roughly the same as 3° to horizon or meridian, but completely vanish long before the horizon/meridian Class 2 bottom hits at 7°.
Marking ingresses Dormant or not helps enormously removing a lot of doubt and confusion that would be there just based on % numbers. (This will also be made easier with the individual angles specified, as you're about to do.)
As a problem example: The current Capsolar for Washington has Pluto 1°34' from Nadir. This is quite strong (and the strongest planet in the chart). Pluto's strength score is 93% which looks like a big number but is roughly where a planet would be more than 5° from a major angle.
I'm trying to think of a recent better example - there was an ingress recently where the only reason it wasn't dormant was something on a minor angle just under 2°. The not-dormant call was exactly right but the percent score was quite low and one wouldn't have expected it to be a "close" (dormancy-busting) angularity at the low number. If I find it, I'll add it back here.
That's my meandering thinking. By pure orb, I know where the cut-offs are; AND in TMSA in general I've come to really rely on the FG % numbers, sometimes reading a chart ONLY from that; AND, addition of the specific angle will help that even more, alerting me which angles I need to double-check; but the angularities that are close enough to prevent dormancy but have % scores as low as distant Class 2 contacts with horizon or meridian throw me sometimes. This suggests that the curve is misshaped (and I don't have a real answer, just questions).
