NavList:

Gary LaPook writes:

And remember the errors I found in H.O. 249, as published on the government's web site, which were also calculated with electronic computers. What other errors exist in navigational tables that haven't been discovered yet?

I recommend the Bygrave slide rule for computation of celestial data, not a single electron is harmed in the calculation.

gl

Lu Abel wrote:

Fred Hebard wrote:
  

On Jan 2, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Lu Abel wrote:


    

Greg R. wrote:

      

--- frankreed@HistoricalAtlas.net wrote:



        

What do you think he's talking about?


          

Obviously someone who hasn't had a major electrical/electronics
failure
while out on the open ocean...  ;-)


        

Would that include my quartz crystal controlled watch?

I truly believe in the adage that a good navigator has two or more
sources of positional information available.   And only a fool
would go
offshore with a single GPS set, even if it were integrated into the
fanciest electronic charting system.

But I can't figure out why the "can't trust electronics, gotta use
celestial" crowd seems perfectly happy with electronic chronometers
(synchronized, of course, by listening to WWV or BBC), and perhaps
even
reducing their sights using a calculator.   Those electronics are
subject to exactly the same failure modes as GPS sets.

      

The answer leads us back to the subject: lunars.  Of course you have
to trust the Nautical Almanac, but....

Fred Hebard

    

Which is generated using *electronic* computers.    Darn, where are
those 19th century logarithm tables when we need them!!  :-P



  

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