But that multiplication by 1.1574 wouldn't work...only for a cylindrical.
I mean, there is a multiplier that will make the map conformal at (lat 30, lon 0), but the approach that I described, that led to 1.1574, was something that would change the conformal point from 21.3 to 30 only for a cylindrical equal-area projection.
I thought that the value (.821454415) for k that I gave, would result in conformality at (lat 30, lon 0). If that doesn't do it, then I'll find the error, and the right values for k, for the two versions that I suggest.
Good to hear it's right this time; it's a problem with so many opportunities for an error, that it wasn't possible for me to really be sure that there still wasn't an error that I'd missed somewhere.. Thanks for checking it.
First I want to emphasize that, when I first posted them, I really wasn't entirely sure whether my k values for Equal-Area PF8.32 were error-free. So, as I said, thanks for checking.
And, even if I'd been sure, of course validity-confirmation by someone else still makes all the difference when someone proposes something like a map-projection, especially one whose derivation has lots of opportunities for error.
Could you post images of Equal-Area PF8.32, with both k values?
(...the k value for conformality at (lat 30, lon 0), and the k value for equal and opposite EW/NS scale-disproportion at (lat 45, lon 0) and at the equator)