NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Averaging
From: Alexandre Eremenko
Date: 2004 Oct 22, 12:45 -0500
From: Alexandre Eremenko
Date: 2004 Oct 22, 12:45 -0500
Dear Jim, Here are my comments on your summary: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Jim Thompson wrote: > So, is this a fair summary? > > Sextant sights are subject to a variety of errors, > leading to imprecision > and inaccuracy. One way to deal with random > observational error is to > average a set of several sights, and then > reduce and plot the average time > and altitude. > > Always apply basic principles to a run of sights: > > 1. Use only sights taken within a few minutes, > a minute or less between > sights. > 2. Use either the raw sextant observations, > or reduce each observation and > use the reduced set. If you reduce each observation, there is no point in averaging them. And there is no point in taking them in a short time interval. > observations. This elimates variation owing to the way > the corrections > themselves might vary, but it still does not > make the run of sights linear. The non-linearity question is relevant ONLY if you average row observations. > 1. The body is very likely to be changing > altitude in a nonlinear fashion. Just vice versa: very UNLIKELY. Namely: ONLY when near the meridian on high altitude. In all other cases it is linear for all practical purposes. > 2. High vessel speed can also lead to non-linearity in the data. No, it cannot. This was the subject of my very first message in this Averaging discussion, and everyone seemed to agree. It is only on jet-propulsion airplanes that the speed of the vessel can cause any noticeable non-linearity problem.