NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Cocked hats, again.
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2007 Mar 16, 12:04 +1100
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2007 Mar 16, 12:04 +1100
Gary wrote:
Oh come on, Gary. How would the "true position" get to be "significantly outside"?
This has to involve significant error. Doesn't it make more sense to eliminate gross error, and error less gross as well while you're at it, both random and systematic, before calculation of position lines so that you can then have more confidence in your calculated fix?
More sense than just to abandon common sense and say:
"Oh la la; statistics has just proved that I can have no idea at all of where I am!"
And just how is he (or she, or you) going to allow for it, in this retrospective scenario? Is there any better, more correct fix that you can calculate? (Well yes there is, via a reduction of error but not retrospectively, apart from the resolution of systematic error.)
Are you sure someone said those words: "always inside the triangle"? I have never come across such a statement. Could the statement have been more along the lines of the calculable fix lying at the centre of the position lines? In which case it wasn't bad info at all.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
his true position may be significantly outside the cocked
hat
Oh come on, Gary. How would the "true position" get to be "significantly outside"?
This has to involve significant error. Doesn't it make more sense to eliminate gross error, and error less gross as well while you're at it, both random and systematic, before calculation of position lines so that you can then have more confidence in your calculated fix?
More sense than just to abandon common sense and say:
"Oh la la; statistics has just proved that I can have no idea at all of where I am!"
and he better allow for that possibility.
And just how is he (or she, or you) going to allow for it, in this retrospective scenario? Is there any better, more correct fix that you can calculate? (Well yes there is, via a reduction of error but not retrospectively, apart from the resolution of systematic error.)
Regarding your other post today, I too learned that your position was
always inside the triangle with the most likely point being the center.
We now know that was bad information.
Are you sure someone said those words: "always inside the triangle"? I have never come across such a statement. Could the statement have been more along the lines of the calculable fix lying at the centre of the position lines? In which case it wasn't bad info at all.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
