Sorry, but I don't see how you're getting this from my article on deriving aspects. Perhaps if I explain my method of research it will become more clear?
I wrote a Perl script that divided 360 by a list of numbers and then spit out the results. Dividing by integers only (1, 2, 3, etc.), I get the major aspects. Then I add one decimal place of precision to my number list and run the script again (dividing by 1.1, 1.2, etc.). That gives a list of the major aspects plus some minor aspects. All other results were excluded because they did not divide evenly into 360. Note that all the angular degrees associated with aspects are integers. I excluded all results that required "fractional degrees." Only the divisors were allowed to have decimals. Add another decimal place to the divisor, you get even more. I ran the script out to six decimal places. There was only one new aspect that resulted from the run with four places, one new aspect at five places, and no new aspects at six places.
After doing this, I re-wrote the script to divide every number from 1 to 360 (out to six decimal places) by 360. While doing this, I used a particular Math module that allowed precision calculation out to 30+ decimal places. This gave me an huge list of mostly run-away numbers that exceeded 30 decimal places. Through culling this list, I realised that only the aspects I had already discovered by the first method ended prior to the 30th decimal place. This second method confirms the mathematical portion of the first method. There are likely no other aspects derivable from the number 360 through division. These two methods are exhaustive, which is why I wanted to use them. Whether I know what all these aspects mean or not, I at least know their angle. That is enough to facilitate further research.
Now, perhaps, I can break down my article's explanation a little more clearly.
me said:
In order to derive the orbs, I assigned each aspect (according to the R column) a percentage value out of 360.
This percentage value is based on the need for aspects of greater angle to have greater orb. Note that the angular degrees (R column) of the aspects are pretty close together at the bottom, but spaced out more toward the top. The percentage value was introduced to meet this need.
me said:
I also assigned each aspect a tier number (1 - 6), according to how many decimal places were necessary to reach its value in the D column. Aspects which require no decimal places are 1st tier and those requiring 5 places are 6th tier.
The tier number is basically a measure of how major or how minor an aspect is. Remember that all the major aspects turned up when dividing by integers (tier 1). The minor aspects filled in more in progressive tiers. Note that there are some aspects (such as 100 and 104) which have large angle but are still relatively close together. This presents a need to scale orbs according to tier also. That's why tier and percentage numbers are used together to calculate orb.
me said:
I divided the percentage value by the tier number for each aspect, multiplied by 10 (the size of the biggest orb possible), and rounded its result to the nearest half degree. Orbs smaller than 0.5° were rounded to the nearest quarter degree.
The use of the number 10 is slightly arbitrary, but could only fall in a certain range. Notice that the list stops at 10 degrees. I could include eight more aspects less than ten degrees, but I would consider those to be either trumped by or just flavour for the conjunction. Less than 10 degrees is conjunction territory. 10 degrees is also the largest orb I am comfortable giving, even to a conjunction. This way, every orb is "calibrated" according to the size of its aspect's angle, its tier (how major it is), and the size of the conjunction (which is the largest orb). There is nothing to stop anyone from reformulating these numbers by new ideas to get slightly different results, but the results for any system that would work should be quite close.
me said:
This process accounts for both the scale and tier of each aspect, and produces orbs for each that are usable and sensible.
I hope I've helped to clarify this.
