NavList:

   

Reply

Anyway,
I call for the tests of the method,
rather than the discussion of personalities
and offenses which is going on now:-)

Let us use the same criteria as were used for the Lunars
method in XIII century. I will be surprised is the method
permits to determine your position to 30 miles.


> Well, I guess it all depends
> on the meaning of that phrase "ordinary
> sextant".

By "ordinary sextant I meant of course a good one
(but without a tripod or any other tricks which
can work only on land:-)

I should have said "well trained observer of reasonable
ability".

The arc corrections of a sextant are not very relevant
here. A person who can measure distances to 0.1'
reliably will have no difficulty in determining
arc corrections of her sextant.

> By the way, as I mentioned before in this  topic, I'm a
> big believer in averaging four sights
> whenever you're trying to do  lunars. And
> this was considered normal practice historically.

I am a "big believer" in the averaging as well.

> It might be eyesight, but I'm betting
> on technique (and that sticky
> micrometer in your SNO-T sextant).

My results are not better with your sextant.
So it is not a micrometer problem.

Alex.




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply