NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Wolfgang Köberer
Date: 2006 Nov 11, 10:13 +0100
Dear all,
Frank's up-tempo reaction to me
referring to an article describing his new idea 94 years ago, causes me to give
some more information:
The "Annalen der Hydrography und Maritimen
Meteorologie" were the monthly journal of the "Deutsche Seewarte", published
between 1872 and 1944. During the period of interest here, prior to the "Great
War" (as I think they say in your part of "Old Europe", George) it contained
articles and reports on hydrographic subjects (ocean drifts and water depths
etc.) as well as on weather forecasting - some colorful descriptions of storms
in the North Sea area - and, of course, celestial navigation. The articles on
celnav did not make up the bulk of the contributions, as the intercept
method had been almost universally adopted in Germany. Those articles were
mostly concerned with refining measurement - I recall lengthy reports on
dip experiments developing formulae - but some treated celestial navigation in
the air (mostly for the benefit of determination of the position of a balloon)
and therefore without a usable horizon. There were also discussions about new
tables or graphical means of shortening the necessary calculations.
Regards,
Wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: NavList@fer3.com
[mailto:NavList@fer3.com]Im
Auftrag von Peter Fogg
Gesendet: Samstag, 11. November 2006
01:23
An: NavList@fer3.com
Betreff: [NavList 1663] Re: Latitude by
Lunar Distance
Frank wrote:
>
> I think
[position via moon parallax is]
> quite a novel concept for this group of
people. I suppose that's why a
> couple of people were determined to
attack it instead of trying it out.
Having followed this topic with some
interest, as was also shown by
others, I don't recall 'attacks' as such. What
I do remember are
requests for more detailed information, and perhaps the
expression of
a little frustration when this was not forthcoming. Don't be so
quick
to assume the mantle of the martyr, Frank. Do feel encouraged
to
explain fully new concepts.
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.
The advantage of peer review before
publication is that the process
(should) ensure that the idea is complete
(whole), is well expressed,
and (hopefully) able to be demonstrated. It makes
a good idea better,
while weeding out the others.
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.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---