1. It`s a hypothetical planet, not an observable object nor a calculated point.
(uranian astrology works with the hypothetical planets)2. it "moves" so slow, it is even more generational than Pluto (I put the word `move`into quotation marks, as since it has never been observed, his speed and location in the sky is totally hypothetical as well)
3. for those who work with hypothetical planets,
"HADES (HAY deez)
All that is unpleasant, useless, antique, or deeply buried. The occult ... Hades is misunderstood, because many think only of the negative meanings: dirt, garbage, sewage, sickness, poverty, mistakes, and all things ugly and sinister. There is a positive side that deals with antiquity, depth, and past lives. Hades advances 1°01' per year, so its orbit around the Sun takes a little over 360 years. "
http://www.dxpnet.com/opinion/astrology/Uranian-Astrology-transNeptunian-Planets-3 430329.asp
The proposed orb in Uranian astrology seems to be one degree or even less. And using hard aspects, including semi- and sesisquare.
http://junojuno2.tripod.com/tnps.htm
EDIT:
they may have value, or they may have not. Everyone needs to come to their own decision about it, but I find it important to know the background of the hypothetical points.
I am not as opposed to them as I was years ago, though I still find the way they have been "invented" quite questionable, and depending on a LOT of premises, that I do not necessarily believe must be true.
" The idea was that these planets could be positioned by looking at
> solar arc directions on a person's natal chart and comparing the
> directions to events in that person's life. The upshot was that in
> looking at these solar arcs, certain forces turned up missing. For
> example , when a person got married at age 22, there should be a
> planet about 22 degrees from the midheaven, or 22 degrees from the
> moon. This planet always turned up missing, and yet when this
> missing point was compared in horoscope charts of persons about the
> same age, it was in the same spot in the zodiac.
>
> Alfred Witte, the founder of Uranian Astrology, (which he called
> "The Hamburg Method") used this technique, in fact he invented this
> technique, to discover the planet Cupido, the planet of Marriage."
http://junojuno2.tripod.com/tnps.htm
The questionable premise for me is that it is assumed that there HAD to be a conjunction through solar arcs to angles or luminaries at a certain event and age (actually there are TWO premises in this one: the one that Solar Arcs are the non-plus-ultra and only working predictive tool, excluding anything else; and that there had to be a conjunction in solar arcs).
while the premise might be true, it is still up to research and investigation, but in this system it becomes a factual reality, that ground the deriving of the hypothteticals is based on. If the premise does not turn out to be true, the whole building will collapse.
However, it is STILL intriguing to see that the "missing spots" apparently turned up CONSISTENTLY in very DIFFERENT charts.
This is what makes me soften my original stance on them a little.
Besides Anne Ortelee uses them, and her column is some of the best in terms of prediction I have ever read. so I am inclined to give the benefit of doubt, and research that within the tight parameters (one degree orb and hard aspects) and see if they deliver the results.
sorry for the long edit, I was just thinking out aloud.