NavList:

   

Reply

--- Peter Fogg  wrote:

> However, its not the article on the Starpath site that I think I
> remember (I know ..). THAT one (in my wild erratic fancy) showed
> how an outlier can lead to quite a wrong slope, if all you had to
> work with was the data points themselves.  Bill, does this ring any
> bells?  Anyone?

Actually, I think that may be the one you're thinking of (I've read
both of his articles on sight-averaging and metal vs. plastic sextants
and remember what you're speaking of).

This particular article writes about having 4 sights plotted on graph
paper, and the inclination to throw the 2nd sight out as being off the
slope of the other 3.

But later analysis by reducing a pair of sights at the beginning and
the end of the shooting session (to derive a more accurate slope,
rather than just an average of the 4 sights) shows that the 1st sight
is the one that's off the slope and not as accurate as the others.

--
GregR


--- Peter Fogg  wrote:

>
> There.  That's a simpler, more relevant Subject, is it not?
>
> Bill has kindly sent me a David Burch article entitled "How to
> Average
> Celestial Sights for Optimum Accuracy".  That helped me to find the
> online link:
> http://www.starpath.com/resources2/sight_average.pdf
>
> Its a nice explanation and I recommend it.  However, its not the
> article on the Starpath site that I think I remember (I know ..).
> THAT one (in my wild erratic fancy) showed how an outlier can lead to
> quite a wrong slope, if all you had to work with was the data points
> themselves.  Bill, does this ring any bells?  Anyone?
>
> >
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply