NavList:

   

Reply

Hi Bill,

from the text of David's response it's the same
article.

David's main thrust appears to be that the CW article
understated the potential accuracy of celestial
navigation. Secondary argument was about plastic
sextants and also about the use of the "best" sight
rather than appropriate averaging and sight discards.
Further secondary argument was about whether height of
eye could have contributed to what David argues as
unsatisfactory accuracy.

As I read David's response and leaving all of David's
arguments as valid, it seems to me that you arrive at
an interesting picture that says: "In this test the
plastic sextants were substantially less accurate than
the metal sextants". Reason unknown.

Does that mean that plastic sextants are bad? No it
does not. Does it mean that you can't get accurate
sights from them? No it does not - many list members
and David Burch attest to that.

As I said before - grist for the mill and David's
letter adds further grist.

Havagoodweegend.

Mike
--- Bill  wrote:

> > At home
> > this weekend I will try and dig out the article
> and
> > give a little more detail.
>
> Mike
>
> Did the article happen to appear in a June issue
> (2000?) of Cruising World?
>
> If so, you may wish to read David Burch's letter to
> them regarding their
> methodology:
>
> http://www.starpath.com/cw-1.htm
>
> Heck, it's good reading for anyone.
>
> Bill
>




____________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: Now with unlimited storage
http://au.photos.yahoo.com

   

Reply