NavList:

   

Reply

Gary LaPook wrote:

Of course I agree with you that all error that can be eliminated
should be. However, after that is done, you are still left with random
error and that should be allowed for.

Again, this discussion presupposed that was already done and we were
just discussing the residual random error component.

On Mar 16, 1:18 pm, "P F"  wrote:
> Gary again, quoting me to begin with:
>
> > This has to involve significant error. Doesn't it make more sense to
> > > eliminate gross error, and error less gross as well while you're at it,
> > both
> > > random and systematic, before calculation of position lines so that you
> > can
> > > then have more confidence in your calculated fix?
>
> To which he has replied:
>
> Sure, but this discussion was based on the next step, after those
>
> > errors were already eliminated leaving only random error to be
> > discussed.
>
> Gary, I think you are confused here. Error can be split up into systematic
> (constant) and random. Either can be significant.
>
> The distinction is important as the method of resolving them is different.
> Both should be resolved as much as possible since this will lead to position
> lines in which one can have more confidence, that are closer approximations
> to the position.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply