NavList:

   

Reply

> Navigation so broadly defined could include finding my route down the
> highway in my truck by following road signs or at least finding my way
> down back roads on foot. Hardly the intent of this list, I suspect.

Strikes me that given the introduction to the list by our host, that would
be fair game.  By now roads and signs could easily be considered
"traditional", especially on your side of the pond. If they are invisible,
better yet. Lewis and Clark, which has been a topic as I recall, did a lot
of bushwhacking. Nobody HAS to respond.

When I opted in, I received the following message from our gracious host.

            " <>

INTRODUCTION
Navigation-L is a list primarily dedicated to the study and discussion of
all methods and techniques of the art of non-electronic navigation. Our
aim is to practice and study the traditional navigation techniques.
All topics involving non-electronic navigation are acceptable. Notices
about electronic navigation are acceptable, but prolonged discussions
should be taken off line. The list is open to all levels of navigation
knowledge from beginners to experts. We hope that you participate in the
discussions on Navigation-L."

Cel nav and its history, especially on the water, just happens to be a hot
topic on the list.  A consensus of the participants if you will.

> What little I know of ice navigation makes it sound analogous to picking
> your way around shoals by the colour of the water and the changes in
> wave patterns on the surface: more or less the opposite end of the
> marine-navigation spectrum from celestial nav. If those are acceptable
> grist for the mill, I have no complaints.

How interesting.  I do that without even thinking about it.  Thank you for
the reminder of something I take for granted--eyesight and experience.  I am
sincere about that.

In the final analysis, I must agree with you about off topic, but for
another reason. Noting the perceived color of the water and wave action to
determine depth uses a sophisticated computer.  The same computer that uses
two sensors to determine short-range distance.  Or, having been programmed
with the distance between a lighthouse and another object on the way out,
approximates distance off and course on the way in by calculating the
relationship and angles between the two.  That same computer use
rate-of-return of a sound wave bounced off a cliff to determine distance
off. That computer uses electricity.  That computer is between my ears. Do
you propose to ban that?

Trevor, any below-the-belt shot you want to take is well deserved. 

Bill

PS. I use two techniques with any list with heady content. If the subject
matter is of interest I read or quickly scan it. If not interested, hit
"delete."  If it is of possible interest and I have no time, appropriate
tools, or current ability (lunars for example) I drop them into a "to
ponder" directory so I have a breadcrumb trail to follow in the archives at
my leisure. A list is not limited to MY current interests or abilities.  "It
is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception,
is composed of others."--John Andrew Holmes..

PPS.  If Frank or George or Herbert or Alex et al posted the same question I
posted, verbatim, it would most likely become a long-running thread for
them. I would be lucky to get an off-list response;-)  Or it becomes a a
jumping off point for a long running thread that never answers this newbie's
ID 10-T question.  And that is just the way it works, like it or not.

Pax vobiscum

Bill

   

Reply