NavList:

   

Reply

> Bill wrote:
> "> If I recall, the specs
>> are plus/minus 10 seconds error along  the arc (0.17').
>> Unless you got a
>> dud, any value higher than  0.2' is highly suspect.
>
> And Alex replied:
> "Yes, I'm afraid it is a dud."

Frank responded:
>
> I don't buy it. That the certificate *says* the error is 10 seconds doesn't
> mean much of anything. Arc error is a correctable error and shooting
> lunars/star-star sights is probably the best way to detect it. Build your
> table,  and
> then use it. And the fact that such error exists doesn't mean the instrument
> is a "dud". Correcting for arc error, once you have determined it, is every
> bit  as easy as correcting for index error.

Frank

I was looking at the bigger picture (for a refreshing change of pace).
Celestaire, for example, speaks of accuracy by the lot.  I would expect my
Atsra III B to be no worse than plus/minus 19" throughout the arc, maybe
better, despite any certificate.  Any Cassens & Plath no worse than
plus/minus 9".  Any SNO-T no worse than plus/minus 10".  Those should be
upper limits.  That is not to say lemons do not exist.

I have no cause to believe Soviet military gear would have been substandard
(although not petite ;-)  If I accurately recall the post, some sort of cel
nav contest was won by a Polish sailor with a SNO-T--a long run of .2'
within known positions.  If any of the list members have more details about
this seagoing cel-nav superstar, I would love to read them.

> I don't buy it.

Too bad.  I have a gut feeling Alex would be willing to sell it if the
"right" offer came along.   Kidding aside, I believe him to be the sort
that will persevere and defeat any idiosyncrasies the SNO-T may posses.

Bill

   

Reply