NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Observations with pocket sextant in the Baltic CROSS POST
From: Bill B
Date: 2006 Jul 2, 15:18 -0500
Alex wrote
> The conditions were not ideal for sailing (too little wind)
> but ideal for CelNav and sextant testing.
> Still I am very surprised that so simple, low-tech, old sextant,
> on which even perpendicularity error cannot be adjusted,
> gives such good results (in fact, the results are better than with my
> SNO-T!)
At last, the sextant of your dreams. <G?
We had great sailing, but poor cel nav conditions except for the day on
shore. Made Chicago from Michigan City (35 nm) in less than 5 hours. What
made them such wild rides was not so much wind and wave height, but
frequency. I timed it as 3.5 to 4.5 second intervals, just slightly less
than NOAA stated earlier (then again, the seas had built). Would probably
have had to use a zero-magnification sight tube if the sun cooperated
As to, "Averaging time, position and Ho I was -0d 1.4' (-1.5' if I consider
sun velocity of 14d 59' 52"). Translating into 1.04 nm off at 41d 46!25 N."
Got a bit ahead of myself with that blunder. 1.4 is 1.4 nm. With the
latter time site converting degrees latitude to nm is fair game.
Bill
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
From: Bill B
Date: 2006 Jul 2, 15:18 -0500
Alex wrote
> The conditions were not ideal for sailing (too little wind)
> but ideal for CelNav and sextant testing.
> Still I am very surprised that so simple, low-tech, old sextant,
> on which even perpendicularity error cannot be adjusted,
> gives such good results (in fact, the results are better than with my
> SNO-T!)
At last, the sextant of your dreams. <G?
We had great sailing, but poor cel nav conditions except for the day on
shore. Made Chicago from Michigan City (35 nm) in less than 5 hours. What
made them such wild rides was not so much wind and wave height, but
frequency. I timed it as 3.5 to 4.5 second intervals, just slightly less
than NOAA stated earlier (then again, the seas had built). Would probably
have had to use a zero-magnification sight tube if the sun cooperated
As to, "Averaging time, position and Ho I was -0d 1.4' (-1.5' if I consider
sun velocity of 14d 59' 52"). Translating into 1.04 nm off at 41d 46!25 N."
Got a bit ahead of myself with that blunder. 1.4 is 1.4 nm. With the
latter time site converting degrees latitude to nm is fair game.
Bill
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
