NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: lunars with and without altitudes
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2006 Nov 30, 02:24 EST
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2006 Nov 30, 02:24 EST
Fred you wrote:
"The most thorough study of this was reported by Jan Kalivoda a few
years ago, from a German paper of the 1870s or so. As I recall, the
standard deviation was around 0.25 to 0.3 minutes of arc. So the
standard error of the mean of four observations would be about 0.15
minutes of arc rather than the 0.1 you claim. That's pretty good
though."
years ago, from a German paper of the 1870s or so. As I recall, the
standard deviation was around 0.25 to 0.3 minutes of arc. So the
standard error of the mean of four observations would be about 0.15
minutes of arc rather than the 0.1 you claim. That's pretty good
though."
I don't know that we have any basis for calling it "THE most thorough
study", though it's certainly "a" thorough study and certainly relevant.
The results seem similar to E. J. White's lunars in 1889. It's an open
question whether you can get a better sextant in 2006 than you could in 1875. I
could imagine the answer going either way. <g>
-FER
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N 72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N 72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
