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 17, 07:18 +1100
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2007 Mar 17, 07:18 +1100
Gary again, quoting me to begin with:
To which he has replied:
Gary, I think you are confused here. Error can be split up into systematic (constant) and random. Either can be significant.
The distinction is important as the method of resolving them is different. Both should be resolved as much as possible since this will lead to position lines in which one can have more confidence, that are closer approximations to the position.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To unsubscribe, send email to NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> 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?
To which he has replied:
Sure, but this discussion was based on the next step, after those
errors were already eliminated leaving only random error to be
discussed.
Gary, I think you are confused here. Error can be split up into systematic (constant) and random. Either can be significant.
The distinction is important as the method of resolving them is different. Both should be resolved as much as possible since this will lead to position lines in which one can have more confidence, that are closer approximations to the position.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To unsubscribe, send email to NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
