Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    Name or NavList Code:
    Email:
       
    Reply
    Re: Taking four stars for checking accuracy of fix - and "Cocked Hats"
    From: George Huxtable
    Date: 2008 Aug 3, 13:49 +0100

    Geoffrey Kolbe wrote-
    
    |...you can calculate how an altitude will vary
    | with time and so you now have a line with the correct slope to fit to your
    | data. This is an additional piece of information that simple averaging or
    | statistical fitting by method of least squares, say, does not give you.
    | Having got your line with the correct slope, you can draw a line parallel
    | to this through your data points for a best fit. Yes, no doubt about it,
    | this is superior to simple averaging as an extra piece of information is
    | being included that was not there before.
    
    I am less easily convinced than is Geoffrey.
    
    Yes, it's better to calculate the slope thanc trying to determine the slope
    of the fitted straight line from the data points themselves; no question
    about that. And it's better than simply averaging those changing altitudes
    over the time period, if the observations were unequally-spaced in time. (If
    they were equally spaced, you would arrive at exactly the same answer).
    
    But having done that, all that's been done is to compensate for the known
    steady rate of rise or fall. And it's done nothing to reduce the statistical
    scatter of the points about that line. You raise or lower that line, with
    that slope, until it runs between your points, as centrally as possible. And
    the uncertainty in getting that best fit, by eye, is no better (but may not
    be significantly worse) than when tackling the same problem at the moment of
    a meridian passage, when the altitude is unchanging, and simple averaging of
    all sights gives the best answer. There's no magic process of eliminating
    the random scatter. It remains the scatter in each single observation,
    divided by the square root of the number of observations.
    
    George.
    
    contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com
    or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
    or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
    
    
    --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
    Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
    To post, email NavList@fer3.com
    To , email NavList-@fer3.com
    -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    
    

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Get a NavList ID Code

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    A NavList ID Code guarantees your identity in NavList posts and allows faster posting of messages.

    Retrieve a NavList ID Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your NavList code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    NavList ID Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site