NavList:

   

Reply

Before probing this a bit further has anyone done a literature survey
on the distribution of errors in aeronautical sextant readings?

At risk of stating the obvious for a random variable with a symmetric
probability distribution the mean and mode coincide. Of course there
is very much more to this question, starting that this is a sample
from the distribution, but understanding the sources of the errors and
their distribution is the first thing to do. I imaging someone did a
study with aviators taking lots of sights from a known position!

I looked for references when writing my paper with Moses and
Kimberling  in the JoN (http:/dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0373463319000675)
and found this

Peterson, B.C. (1952). Some observations of refraction at low
altitudes and of astronomical position-line accuracy.
The Journal of Navigation, 5(1), 31–38.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0373463300045033

Also
Shufeldt, H. (1962). Precision Celestial Navigation Experiments.
Journal of Navigation, 15(3), 301-324.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0373463300042703
and
Gordon, R. (1964). The Attainment of Precision in Celestial
Navigation. Journal of Navigation, 17(2), 125-147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0373463300048505
(both referring to Peterson)
 I expect NavListers will know other studies, especially for
aeronautical bubble sextants?

Bill


On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 02:04, Bill Morris  wrote:
>
> I'm not a mathematician and have an uncertain grasp of statistics having 
once thought them to be a form of contact adhesive, but can say with the 
conviction of the possibly ill-informed that taking the median ensures that 
less weight is given to outliers.
>
> And, mathematicians, how does continuously integrating as in the SOLD and 
Hughes Marine Bubble sextant, compare with averaging sixty observations two 
seconds apart?
>
> Bill Morris
>
> Pukenui
>
> New Zealand
>
> 

   

Reply