Orbs Used in Uranian Astrology
 
Tight orbs are necessary for when using Hamburg School / Uranian techniques.
On this page are a series of questions and answers from
The Uranian Group email list that detail the correct orbs,
as put forward by an astrologer in Bangkok, Thailand.


 
Date sent:       Mon, 14 Dec 1998 
Subject:         ## Chanchai: Orbs, Hamburg School  

Moderator's note: 

Last week I sent a letter to Chanchai in Bangkok, asking about 
orbs used in the Hamburg School teachings (as taught by the 
Bangkok Astrological School).  He has kindly given me permission 
to post his reply to the group.  My letter is below, followed by his
answers. 

I must be cautious, though, and state that this post should not be 
taken as a definitive position of the Hamburg School; only someone 
such as Udo Rudolf could do this.  As Chanchai explains, " I have 
some rough guidelines for myself..."  Well, in my opinion your 
"rough guidelines" are quite detailed and substantive.   Thank you, 
Chanchai, for sharing your knowledge with us. 

Steve 


 

Dear Chanchai, 

I am creating a web page on "Orbs Used in Uranian Astrology", 
and I would appreciate your comments. 

From what I understand about the Hamburg School, generally orbs 
of less than one degree are used, for aspects of 360 (zero) and 90 
degrees, and an orb of 30 minutes maximum for the 22.5 degree 
aspects.  Usually with Hamburg techniques, it appears that very 
close orbs of less than 30 minutes are used. 

Also, as we reduce the aspect, e.g.. from 90 to 45 to 22.5 to 11.25 
to 5.125 degrees, we also must reduce the orb, from 1 degree 
down to about 3 minutes (for 5.125 degrees). *** Is this correct, 
from what you were taught ? 

And if personal points are involved, then the orb can be larger, and of
course, if single factors are also involved then the orb is also larger. 

For instance:   Mc = Asc = Su   at 90 or 360 degrees aspect 
...compared to.... Me = Ju / Ha   at a 22.5 degree aspect ... would 
require quite different orbs. 

R. A. Jacobson's book on Uranian Astrology states that 4 to 5 
degree orbs can be used, for conjunctions.  However, this does 
seem too wide. What do you think ? 

Any information that you can offer would be appreciated. 

Thank you, 

Steve 



 

Date sent:       Wed, 9 Dec 1998 

Dear Steve, 

This topic is quite difficult for me to put in a systematic concept. What
I have been taught, found from text books and in discussions are almost in
disagreement with each other. However in practice I have some rough
guidelines for myself. My nonsystematic concept on orbs used in Uranian
Astrology are as follows: 
 

1.    Factors can aspect each other by 2 types of aspect that is the 
aspect by sign and the angular aspect. 
 

2.    There are 4 types of aspect by sign considered to be potential, that
is 1-4-7-10. That is the factors in the angular sign from each other are
considered to aspect each other and we just read the mix result from the
rules the same way as we read for the angular aspect. For example Sun in
Leo and Jupiter in Taurus are considered as Su = Ju and the result is read
the same way from the rule. This is a preliminary or a first glance to
scan the planetary structure of a chart and is complementary to the
further detail angular aspect. The orb in this case is very large as any
planet in the angular sign are considered effective for example Sun at
0.10 deg Leo and Jupiter in 29.98 deg Leo are considered to be in
conjunction even though they are 29.88 deg orb !   Intensity degree in
order from the strongest is 1-7-10-4. 
 

3.    Angular aspectarian is the normal angular aspect we generally 
use. For progression, solar arc direction, and transit we strictly use
1 degree orb maximum. So there is no problem on this case. 
 

4.   For natal charts we basically also use 1 degree orb but with 
some exceptions. Exceptions is not clear to me yet. I will try to 
write strictly in word what I learned: 

a)   For aspectarian of 0-45-90-180, we basically use 1 degree orb. 
 

b)   For 22.30 degree we use 30 minutes orb and for impressive 
outcomes we use very tight orb for this may be only not more than 
5 minutes. 

     We call this 22.30 aspect "minor aspect" and only use to 
complement other stronger structures except when the orb is very 
tight as mentioned. For example if there is only Su = Ve (45 deg) 
and then we have -Su = Su/Ve (22.30deg at 29min orb), the latter 
is considered to enhance the character of the former only. We will 
give no word if there is only the second picture. 
 

c)   Normally we will not use smaller aspects than 22.30 deg. 
Those smaller angles are considered to produce only small events 
not stronger than the daily events in everyday life. Also if we use 
too small of an angle then we will get too many pictures to interpret and
conclude. 

d)   In addition to c) attention is paid more to the size of angle if the
orb is within an allowed limit (based on basic rule and the astrologer's
judgement). For example if  Su = Ma at 45 deg with 2 minutes orb is compared
with Su = Ma at 90 deg 1.25 deg orb, we still consider the latter much
stronger. However the maximum limit of orb for the latter case is still
not clear to me. In the case Su = Ma at 180 deg with 2.10 deg orb then It
will be very difficult for me to consider this to be stronger than that of
45 deg with 2 minutes orb. However if the orb is reduce to be 1.8 deg then
I can decide to give better marks to the strength of this picture. So you
will see this issue is quite confusing to me as well. 

e)    For the Sun, Bangkok Astrological School (BAS) 's 
documents allow up to 3 deg or. The reason given is that Sun is a 
very strong factors as the the center of its universe and is really a star
emanation light and energy to all of it's orbital planets. (I can not find
this documents now, I  just write from my memory) 

f)    For M and A BAS's document allow up to 2 degree orb. My 
opinion is that because M and A is very sensitive both interim of 
receiving influences from other factors and to time (4 minutes for 1
degree). This means orb of 2 deg already affect M and A. Also it is very
difficult to be sure of M and A's position so allowance is provided. 
 

5.   In conclusion, it is clear that for transits, progressions and 
solar arc directions that the orb is strictly not more than 1 degree. 

For natal charts it is quite confusing to me. In practice I use the 
basically 1 degree orb for basic interpretation and then consider for
wider orb based on the above mention concepts case by case. However I
rarely allow more than 1 degree orb if everything, and this is clear to
me. This will be done only when the strict 1 degree orb does not give
satisfactory interpretation to the facts we already know. 

One thing should be kept in mind is that strength of an aspect 
decrease parabolically when the orb exceed 1 degree. 
 

6.   I agree with you that orbs can be wider with personal points, 
that is not only M, A and SU. 

My own practice is that I allow 2 degree for M and A, 
2 3 degree for SU and 
1.10 (d.m.) for AR, NO and MO. 

You should realize that this is for natal charts only. For transit, 
progression and direction only not more than 1 degree orb is 
allowed. 
 

7.   I agree with you that for mutual aspect between single factor 
orb should be wider especially when both of them or some of them 
are personal points. However  I think we have to make judgement 
case by case and systematic rule can not be laid. 
 

8.   I completely disagree with  the 4-5 degree orb even for natal 
chart. At 5 degree orb the strength of an aspect will be the same 
as the aspect by sign mentioned in item 1 and 2 above. This 
should not be included with the detailed angular aspect 
consideration. 
 

9.   The aspect by sign mentioned in 1 and 2 is the same method 
we use in Indian and Thai Astrology except that we consider the 1 
(conjunction by sign),  3 (sextile by sign),  6 (trine by sign) very good
aspect and 4 (quadrant by sign), and 7 (opposition by sign) to be strong
and contradictory (just like the Western classic Astrology consider good
and base by type of aspect). 
 

10.    Some Indian astrologers claim that there is no need to use 
the angular aspect, only aspect by sign is enough. Some modern 
astrologers say that the ancient astrologers did not use the angular
aspect because it is difficult for them to calculate the factors' position
in exact figure. In my opinion and experiences aspect by sign is quite
effective especially when personal points are involved but not as strong
as the exact angular aspect. Aspect by sign is used only as a
complementary means. I am ready to discuss further if you have any
comments on this. 

 Very best regards, 

 Chanchai 
 


 

 
Midpoints 101  Main Index 
Uranian Astrology  Main Index  
  Email Steve - creator of these sites