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: Robert Eno
Date: 2006 Jul 4, 08:37 -0500
Alex is correct in his interpretation of what I meant when I referred to "external electronics". I think without electronics, the sextant would have stagnated. We would not have had the pleasure of arc illumination or, in the case of my beloved C.Plath bubble attachment, illumination of the bubble chamber.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexandre E Eremenko <eremenko@math.purdue.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 4, 2006 2:54 am
Subject: [NavList 469] Re: Observations with pocket sextant in the Baltic CROSS POST
>
>
> Bill,
>
> I think Robert's meaning of "external" is
> "external to the boat". That he wants to allow only
> what you have on the boat + natural (=not man made) objects
> and phenomena. This would prohibit any radio connection
> between the boat and man made objects on the shore or in the sky.
> So you will probably have to measure some angles.
>
> Actually I remember discussing this question with a friend
> (who knew nothing about sextants and navigation, but knew
> a lot about modern technology). The friend tried to convince me,
> that one can build a device based on modern technology
> (that is plastic and electronics, no high precision metal
> parts) which will measure altitudes of celestial bodies
> more precisely than a good conventional sextant.
>
> I was not convinced by his specific proposals, but he might be
> right after all.
>
> Of course, a plastic-electronic device (like a modern computer)
> will cost nothing to produce, assuming mass production.
>
> Alex.
>
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Bill wrote:
>
> > > Let's say GPS was never invented,
> > > nor any other kind of external electronic
> > > system. What would the modern sextant have
> > > looked like had it just kept on
> > > undergoing improvements?
> > >
> > > Whatever happened to the "Sextants of Tomorrow" as described
> in Bruce
> > > Bauer's "Sextant Handbook"?
> > >
> > > Robert
> >
> > I am embarrassed. I bit on the premise without defining
> "external." Given
> > the technology necessary for Bauer's sextant and the subsequent
> blue-sky
> > suggestions, what do we exclude? Earth radio waves (Loran etc.)
> that don't
> > leave the earth and bounce off satellites?
> >
> > Are man-made satellites external? If so, would the sun, moon,
> stars and
> > planets not be "external" satellites given the cel nav model
> where the
> > heavens revolve around earth? A slippery slope?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > >
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
From: Robert Eno
Date: 2006 Jul 4, 08:37 -0500
Alex is correct in his interpretation of what I meant when I referred to "external electronics". I think without electronics, the sextant would have stagnated. We would not have had the pleasure of arc illumination or, in the case of my beloved C.Plath bubble attachment, illumination of the bubble chamber.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexandre E Eremenko <eremenko@math.purdue.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 4, 2006 2:54 am
Subject: [NavList 469] Re: Observations with pocket sextant in the Baltic CROSS POST
>
>
> Bill,
>
> I think Robert's meaning of "external" is
> "external to the boat". That he wants to allow only
> what you have on the boat + natural (=not man made) objects
> and phenomena. This would prohibit any radio connection
> between the boat and man made objects on the shore or in the sky.
> So you will probably have to measure some angles.
>
> Actually I remember discussing this question with a friend
> (who knew nothing about sextants and navigation, but knew
> a lot about modern technology). The friend tried to convince me,
> that one can build a device based on modern technology
> (that is plastic and electronics, no high precision metal
> parts) which will measure altitudes of celestial bodies
> more precisely than a good conventional sextant.
>
> I was not convinced by his specific proposals, but he might be
> right after all.
>
> Of course, a plastic-electronic device (like a modern computer)
> will cost nothing to produce, assuming mass production.
>
> Alex.
>
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Bill wrote:
>
> > > Let's say GPS was never invented,
> > > nor any other kind of external electronic
> > > system. What would the modern sextant have
> > > looked like had it just kept on
> > > undergoing improvements?
> > >
> > > Whatever happened to the "Sextants of Tomorrow" as described
> in Bruce
> > > Bauer's "Sextant Handbook"?
> > >
> > > Robert
> >
> > I am embarrassed. I bit on the premise without defining
> "external." Given
> > the technology necessary for Bauer's sextant and the subsequent
> blue-sky
> > suggestions, what do we exclude? Earth radio waves (Loran etc.)
> that don't
> > leave the earth and bounce off satellites?
> >
> > Are man-made satellites external? If so, would the sun, moon,
> stars and
> > planets not be "external" satellites given the cel nav model
> where the
> > heavens revolve around earth? A slippery slope?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > >
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
