NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: On LOPs
From: Trevor Kenchington
Date: 2002 Apr 15, 22:24 -0300
From: Trevor Kenchington
Date: 2002 Apr 15, 22:24 -0300
Jared, I would agree with you that the probability contours around the MPP would not be elliptical if there were more than two LOPs but they would not be circular either -- though a circle might be a close approximation in some cases. If there were four or more LOPs, those contours might get quite complicated, with two (or more) relatively probable areas separated by less-probable areas and irregular low-probability contours surrounding the whole. Also, you are surely right that a rigorous determination of the MPP would require consideration of the various LOPs having different precisions. Assuming that they are all equally reliable is just a convenient simplification to ease discussion of these points. Then again, if your imprecisions are so small that they can be represented graphically by the thicknesses of pencil lines, I'm not sure why you would bother in practice to do more than plot them and circle your entire cocked hat as your fix. Trevor Kenchington Jared Sherman wrote: >So far I haven't seen any justification for the "most probable" position, much less for the use of an ellipse (which has 2 focii) rather than a circle (with one focii, i.e. center) when using 3 or more LOPs (which would indicate a need for 3 or more "focii"). [snip] >