NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: GPS shortcomings.
From: Lu Abel
Date: 2005 Jun 9, 08:01 -0700
From: Lu Abel
Date: 2005 Jun 9, 08:01 -0700
John: I can't deny your real-world experience, but I do have to respectfully ask, as I did Peter Fogg, "what brand of sextant?" On my Davis the worm screw is completely enclosed so I can't tell if it's metal or another material. I can also tell you that I personally and dozens of my students from celestial courses I have helped teach have gotten sights within the USPS limits of a 3 mile error on land with Davis sextants. I think we also have an emotional reaction to "plastic" For many years "plastic" was synonymous with cheap and shoddy. And to some extent it still is; I can go to a discount store and find lots of cheap, shoddy goods made of plastic. But let's remember that Kevlar is a plastic; I don't think a police officer or soldier whose life has been saved by a Kevlar bullet-proof vest would think "cheap and shoddy" about it. Lu Abel John Kabel wrote: > My own experience with plastic versus metal is backed up by about a > thousand sights with each. The plastic arc was progressively eroded by the > metal worm screw over the first six months I owned it. This problem was > compounded by occasional sand particles getting into the threads on the > arc, creating even more abrasion. I was never able to get more than 30 % > of sights below a 5 mile error, while the majority of sights with an Astra > IIIB were below 5 miles, with about 50 % within 3 miles of actual position. > This was a static situation on a beach. And it has nothing to do with the > fact that I was more expereinced by the time I bought the metal sextant. I > can still do a run of sights with either and get roughly the same error > results. > > Plastic sextants are for emergency use only. In fact, I would suggest that > even an experienced navigator would experience more wear on the plastic. > > John Kabel > > >>Peter Fogg wrote: >> >>>>On Behalf Of Lu Abel >>>> >>>>We're talking about the sextant being a backup navigation instrument, not >>>>the primary one, so I must ask why you think a Davis Mk 15 or Mk 25 >>>>wouldn't be up to the task. >>> >>> >>>Metal is more reliable. Won't warp and is less liable to temperature >>>effects. Nothing new or controversial here. >> >>Do you speak from experience or just theory about "plastic?" >> >>My understanding is that Davis's are made out of a form of "engineered" >>plastic that is very strong and has virtually no temperature coefficient of >>expansion. I'll agree "metal is more reliable," but by how much? I have >>co-taught USPS's celestial courses for many years and about 90% of our >>students have used Davis sextants. In years of checking sights I've never >>run across one that was off because the sextant was off -- any errors have >>always been traced to student error. My own Davis Mark 15 is almost two >>decades old and has never given me a problem. >> >>Lu Abel > > >