NavList:

   

Reply

Dear Bill,

> Sorry, I missed the fine print on upper- and lower-limb observation, as
> well as exactly what standard you were using to determine a negative result.
> (I still don't have an answer.)

I don't understand. What do you mean by a "standard"?

> and my observations of your abilities would indicate you cannot be at fault,

I am of different opinion. I can be (and frequently am) at fault.
Knowing this, I use every precaution to eliminate blunders.
This time I actually reduced two times. First the averages with
my hand calculator. Then each observation separately, with my laptop.
The results are consistent and show the same bias.

My eyes are also not as good as they were at the age of 18.
And I have almost no experience with real horizon.
But from all these reasons I would expect RANDOM errors,
not a SYSTEMATIC one.

> 1.  By some twist of fate, the planet earth (and possibly the universe) is
> conspiring against you and repeatedly sending you seriously flawed sextants.

You are welcome to test any of my sextants and decide yourself whether
they are flawed or not. (The most disturbing thing is the contradiction
between the Freiberger certificate of SNO and the star distance tests.
I think you had the similar result to my own when
you tested it).

> 2.  It may be past time to deep six your "superior" and beloved Casio.

I am not sure which Casio you are talking about: calculator or watch.
(Both perform perfectly, by all tests).

> I suspect your choice of professions was, all said and done, extremely wise.

I also think so. In fact I noticed that many high tech devices
frequently malfunction in my presence:-)
I am talking of computers (first of all!) but also telephones,
cars, etc., almost all electric devices.
But I would be very surprised if this happend to such a robust
and low-tech thing as a sextant:-)

Alex.

   

Reply