NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Testing SNO after fixing
From: Fred Hebard
Date: 2005 May 28, 10:52 -0400
From: Fred Hebard
Date: 2005 May 28, 10:52 -0400
On May 28, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Alexandre Eremenko wrote: > Fred, > Sorry. I made a typo as always:-( > This time in the date of the second observation: > the correct date is May 28, that is this morning. > (I computer the altitudes two times before posting them:-) > > >> First, I think it's great that Alex is getting >> observations that are >> within 0.1' or 0.2' of arc from his known position, >> > > Why do you say "within 0.1' or 0.2' ?" > The error is less than 0.1', but with the typo uncorrected it is > 6.6' as you say:-)) I just assumed there was a blunder somewhere and that your calculations were correct. >> One would think that adjusting the backlash >> on the sextant wouldn't >> have affected the readings as long as one always >> approached the final >> setting from the same direction. >> > > As I said, I am not sure what they adjusted, though I saw > the whole procedure, because > we could not properly communicate. > > >> One psychological explanation may be that Alex finally became >> confident enough in his instrument and himself >> > > This cannot be an explanation. > I have no doubt that my sextant had some strange bias > always in the same direction, of variable magnitude > and range about 0.3'-0,6'. > > You used it yourself once with the result +0.3' off with > art horizon (which is really equivalent to +0.6'. > I understand that your single measurement proves nothing > but I have two large notebooks full of observations > taken in October-May. > Something WAS wrong with this sextant though I don't > know exactly what it was. > I was judging from my own experience. Suddenly, one day, I was able to get precise and accurate sights, consistently. I am conjecturing the same thing happened with you since we can't seem to come up with a physical explanation for the large readings you experienced prior to the adjustment of the instrument. I would welcome a physical explanation based on some adjustment of the instrument; this psychological one is the only alternative I can imagine, and it's not entirely satisfactory. By my calculations with your two sets of sights, the mean and standard deviation of Ho-Hc in minutes of arc were 0.096 +/- 0.195 and 0.032 +/- 0.137. Were your previous sights this precise?