NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Question about Davis Mk 25 sextant beam converger
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2006 May 8, 18:39 +0100
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2006 May 8, 18:39 +0100
GregR wrote- "Fred: I hear you on being careful not to "over-adjust" it for errors, but I did need to get a good initial calibration (something that I couldn't seem to do in the backyard), and from what I understand plastic sextants are a lot more susceptible to IE than the metal ones. In fact, the Davis instruction manual seems to recommend adjusting it whenever it's used ("Adjusting your sextant is easy and should be done each time it is used."). Maybe that's why they put knurled adjustment screws on it instead of regular screws?" There are a number of things wrong with what GregR says here. First, in no way does such a zero adjustment get any sort of "calibration" of the sextant, which would require a check, by some means, of the arc divisions right around the scale, not just at the zero point. In general, one normally has to accept that the initial calibration, of the markings around the scale, is approximately correct. Certain sextants will have had that calibration checked by some authority, in which case there will be a table of known errors at different angles tacked to the inside of the box. It is possible, but rather difficult, for a user to make his own calibration checks by star-to-star angles, as Alex Eremenko, in particular, has written about in the list's archives. All such calibrations are made on the understanding that any index offset has been allowed-for first. You will therefore never find any offset noted for zero degrees, in a calibration certificate. Second, obtaining zero index offset, to high accuracy, by adjusting the fiddly mirror screws is a difficult task, nearly an impossible one. When you have made your best attempt, what do you do next? You check it out, by viewing a distant body, to see what (exactly) the scale reads when the images align. What if they don't exactly align at zero on the scale, but at a small offset of the order of a minute or so? Do you go back and do another round of mirror adjustments? No, you just accept what you get, and allow for that initial offset by a simple bit of arithmetic. In fact, no matter how big the zero-offset is, it does not affect the result in any way, as long as it's allowed for. What's wrong here is the mind-set, in thinking of such an offset as a sextant "error", which has to be minimised or zeroed-out if the sextant is to do its job properly. Nothing of the sort. Third, it's true that plastics expand with heat more than metals, and this, depending on the design details may make the zero offset less stable. I have not found that to affect the performance of my own plastic sextant (Ebbco), in practice. I always check the zero before a set of observations, and after, and sometimes interspersed between observations, but never find a significant change. For other plastic sextants, I have seen accounts of significant short-term intability, and wonder if that may be related to looseness somewhere in the mirror mountings. I am careful, when I am using the sextant, not to put it down where a shadow-edge falls across the mirror mountings, to avoid thermal gradients in a sensitive spot, but am no more careful than that. Fourth, if a user keeps readjusting the zero offset by tweaking the screws, he has lost the opportunity to monitor the stability of his sextant by noting such changes. If he records it, and allows for it, never adjusting it, he will get a feel for its long-term reliability. Fifth, what's been missed is how quick-and-easy such an index check is. Simply the work of a moment, to point to the horizon, or Sun or star, align the images, note the reading. Much less time-consuming than the business of tweak, then look, then delicate tweak again, that is involved in trying to zero it out. It's easy to check it before and after, and between, altitude observations. A trick of the old-salt navigators, once they had adjusted any tilt out of their mirrors, and got the zero roughly right, was to introduce a spot of salt-water, or urine, to initiate a bit of corrosion of the adjustments, so that they would never be touched again. GregR is new to the sextant game, but he will learn as he goes. ================= He added- "BTW, don't know if this has been done before, but I came up with a slightly off-the-wall method of "faking" a horizon since the sun's dec is now too high to get a LAN shot with an artificial horizon at my latitude (34?14.9' N): I took a length of surveyor's string and attached one end to the side of the house at my eye height, with the other end attached to a tripod also set at my eye height (and checked for horizontal with a carpenter's line level). From across the backyard (~20') I'm able to get "reasonable" LOPs - the intercepts on those are running anywhere from 3.7 to 8 miles (though I do get the occasional one that's way out of the ballpark, so this method isn't perfect. In fact, I can induce a several-minute error by slouching slightly vs. standing up straight). Even if it's not accurate enough for real navigation, it did serve its purpose in giving me something to practice bringing sights down with (and it's long enough to be able to rock the sextant to find true vertical). Now that I've got that part down, time to work on improving the accuracy with a real horizon. :-)" =========== Fair enough, as long as GregR is aware of the inaccuracies involved. Bending his knees to change his height by one inch will change the angle by about a quarter-degree, which would be enough to shift his position by about 15 miles -- GregR