NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: sextant calibration
From: Alexandre Eremenko
Date: 2006 May 14, 15:37 -0400
From: Alexandre Eremenko
Date: 2006 May 14, 15:37 -0400
I am of the same opinion (as George and Red) on this C-Plath gimmick: adjusting for the index error. It saves you ONE arithmetic operation in reducing the sight, namely one addition/subtraction (of the Index error). To Joel: is THIS the feature that makes C-Plath Navistar Classic "the best sextant in the world"? :-) Alex. On Sun, 14 May 2006, Red wrote: > > George, failing to use a zero-adjustment, after obtaining a sextant that was > designed and built and sold at extra cost in order to enable you to make that > adjustment, is certainly possible. You are right. And building one, at > unnecessary expense which places your product at a marketing disadvantage, does > not mean the user MUST use it. You're right again. > > But failing to use the device, which can and often will eliminate one potential > source of math error from your reductions, makes absolutely no sense at all. It > would be what I call "belligerent ignorance", taking pride in NOT obtaining or > using the information and resources that in this case are literally at your > fingertips. > > While you've got a sextant in your hands for the first time, and presumably you > are taking the time to check it for errors and adjust them out, you would have > to be a particularly stubborn old coot to refuse to use one of the simplest and > most obvious tools on it to remove one step from all subsequent observations. > > I expect those people wouldn't bother using a sextant at all, when they can > simply look at their own feet and announce just as confidently "I am HERE!" > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "George Huxtable"> To: > Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 1:34 PM > Subject: Re: sextant calibration > > > > Red appeared to argue with my earlier statement- > > > > | "But one adjustment that does NOT EVER > > | need to be made is the zeroing of index error, whatever it may be." > > > > in writing > > > > | The Plath companies apparently disagree with you, George. Their > > sextants are > > | built with an extra wheel and scale to allow the user to zero out > > the index > > | error. Would I do this every time? No, certainly not. But it is > > something that a > > | user certainly would do the first time they got the sextant, and > > were trying to > > | set up a baseline of adjustments on it, including the mirror > > positions. > > | > > | More like, to quote Gilbert & Sullivan's Mikado, "Never? Well, > > hardly ever!" > > > > What I said was that the index error adjustment, to bring it to zero, > > does not ever need to be made, and that's a correct statement. The > > fact that Plath have arranged things so that if you want to adjust it, > > it's easy to do so, does not invalidate what I said. That's not the > > only instrument for which such provision has been made. I remember > > seeing an ebony octant, from the early 1800s, provided with a > > lever-on-lever mechanism for fine-tweaking the angle of the horizon > > mirror, for just that purpose. It provided just the right sensitivity > > of adjustment, and stayed nicely put when you let it be. > > > > But just because you CAN make such an adjustment doesn't mean you NEED > > TO. When Red says it's something "a user would certainly do the first > > time", I wonder where he gets that certainty from. > > > > George. > > > > contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com > > or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222) > > or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK. > > >