NavList:

   

Reply

I have been following this discussion off and on and confess that I have
not been paying it close enough attention. With that in mind, perhaps one
of our more erudite members (do you hear me George?) can provide a
summary of the supposition, observations and conclusions that have
transpired over the past few weeks.

I'd like to add here that I am not a big fan of the split horizon, which
has been the subject of much discussion. I switched to a whole horizon
years ago and have never considered going back. Having been an avid
celestial navigator for over 20 years, my preference flies in the face of
the commonly-held view that "beginners" prefer the whole horizon,
while "experienced" navigators prefer the split horizon. I have used the
whole horizon under various conditions of light and weather at sea and on
land and never felt hindered in any way (maybe I am just too stupid to
know better?).

Having said that, I use my sextant extensively with an artificial horizon
for practice on land, which may have a lot to do with my preference.
Whole horizon mirrors seem to lend themselves to artificial horizons
(both bubble attachments and external reflective) much better than split
horizons.

In the end, I think it is a matter of what works for the individual.

Robert




>This matter of how light arrives at the eye via the unsilvered surfaces
of
>the index mirror now seems to be resolved, to (at least) Ken Muldrew's
>satisfaction. Others may yet find a scrap of meat remaining on the the
>bone, to pick at.
>
>To me, it seems to have shown all the best features of how a mailing-list
>discussion ought to be conducted. Listmembers proposed various
experiments,
>tried them out, argued about the results, argued about the underlying
>principles, tossed various ideas to and fro, in a spirit of courtesy and
>mutual respect, to reach a conclusion.
>
>"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" I hear you say, because my
original
>suggestions were confirmed. But I think that all on this list are
>open-minded enough to be prepared to change their stance, and their
minds,
>in the face of strong-enough evidence and argument that points another
way.
>
>It's a real privilege to be a member of such a list as Nav-L. Thanks to
Ken
>for raising an interesting question.
>
>It leads me to wonder how quickly and successfully science and
>understanding would have progressed, in the Days of Newton and Maskelyne
>and Sumner, if they had been able to argue with their contemporaries by
>email, instead of sending letters carried by packhorse and sailing ship.
>
>George.
>
>
>================================================================
>contact George Huxtable by email at george@huxtable.u-net.com, by phone
at
>01865 820222 (from outside UK, +44 1865 820222), or by mail at 1 Sandy
>Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
>================================================================

-------------------
Email sent using AnyEmail (http://netbula.com/anyemail/)
Netbula LLC is not responsible for the content of this email

   

Reply