NavList:

Peter you wrote:

"What I do remember are
requests for more detailed information, and perhaps the expression of
a little frustration when this was not forthcoming."

 

I thought I answered your questions, Peter, but, ya know, I'm not a mind-reader. I can't tell if I'm not getting through to you unless you say that you still don't get it. If you still have some points on this topic that you don't understand, then ask again --please elaborate if possible. More likely than not, I will be happy to help.

 

And wrote:

"The other interesting aspect here is that we now know this idea was
described in 1912...how?
Because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal and has thus
endured 94 years so far. I seem to remember some pooh-poohing of this
suggestion when proposed as appropriate for Frank. Perhaps the value
of publication in such journals has been supported by this revelation."

 

I don't think peer review, per se, had much of anything to do with it. Consider something like "Lecky's Wrinkles in Practical Navigation" (just an example). It's a book that had a major, lasting impact on navigational practice for decades. Even today people read it (and for content, not just for antiquarian interest). Why? Because it was well-written and filled with tasty morsels of knowledge, but it was not published via a process of "peer review", only editorial review. Peer review is really only relevant to academic science, and celestial navigation is no longer academic science. As for Jaeger's article "enduring" for 94 years, what influence did it have? It was buried in a German journal, ignored in its time, forgotten until Wolfgang found it again... As it turns out, and I should say that I am only working from Wolfgang's description of the article, Mr. Jaeger missed a critical piece of the puzzle and therefore got some of it wrong.

 

And you concluded:

"Which brings us full circle to the shortcomings of the expression of
this idea as presented.
100% for ingenuity, Frank; but only 30% for clear expression."

 

Look, Peter, if you don't understand something, you should ask more questions. I'm sorry you feel that I did not express things clearly, but every conversation has different requirements. Clearly, there were several people on the list who understood what I was saying and got the concept right away. You yourself read their posts where they made clear that they understood the process. But of course, each student is unique --me, you, Bill, Dan, Herbert, the whole lot of us; we all learn things and come to understand things in different ways. So again, please feel free to ask more questions. And I almost always learn something new by writing about a topic for a different audience so there's a really good chance that I will reply.

 

Finally: please, no more grading of other people's posts, ok? Your "30% for clear expression" is an un-necessary comment --and I bet that you know that.