NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Eprf Vs, Trf
From: John Karl
Date: 2009 Dec 17, 19:47 -0800
From: John Karl
Date: 2009 Dec 17, 19:47 -0800
Yes, Frank, that was a poor title I used -- I think it caused some confusion. As long as EP1 is in the center of the uncertainty region along LOP1, EP2 is the better estimate. And, in fact as I pointed out, narrow crossing angles are quite useful with the EPRF, and even with LOP1 and LOP2 parallel. So I can't agree with you that EP2 is useless. But yes, RFIX can be quite useless. This is a major advantage of the ERPF, you needn't worry about small crossing angles. Confidence levels are too tricky to discuss, they quickly lead to probability theory. My discussion simply asked which is the better estimate, given LOP1, DR1 and LOP2. However, I can discrribe how the uncertainties play out through the two methods. Do you think that's worth discussing? John -- NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com To , email NavList+@fer3.com
