A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Wolfgang Köberer
Date: 2006 Nov 11, 10:13 +0100
Frank's up-tempo reaction to me referring to an article describing his new idea 94 years ago, causes me to give some more information:
The "Annalen der Hydrography und Maritimen Meteorologie" were the monthly journal of the "Deutsche Seewarte", published between 1872 and 1944. During the period of interest here, prior to the "Great War" (as I think they say in your part of "Old Europe", George) it contained articles and reports on hydrographic subjects (ocean drifts and water depths etc.) as well as on weather forecasting - some colorful descriptions of storms in the North Sea area - and, of course, celestial navigation. The articles on celnav did not make up the bulk of the contributions, as the intercept method had been almost universally adopted in Germany. Those articles were mostly concerned with refining measurement - I recall lengthy reports on dip experiments developing formulae - but some treated celestial navigation in the air (mostly for the benefit of determination of the position of a balloon) and therefore without a usable horizon. There were also discussions about new tables or graphical means of shortening the necessary calculations.
Von: NavList@fer3.com [mailto:NavList@fer3.com]Im
Auftrag von Peter Fogg
Gesendet: Samstag, 11. November 2006 01:23
Betreff: [NavList 1663] Re: Latitude by Lunar Distance
> I think [position via moon parallax is]
> quite a novel concept for this group of people. I suppose that's why a
> couple of people were determined to attack it instead of trying it out.
Having followed this topic with some interest, as was also shown by
others, I don't recall 'attacks' as such. What I do remember are
requests for more detailed information, and perhaps the expression of
a little frustration when this was not forthcoming. Don't be so quick
to assume the mantle of the martyr, Frank. Do feel encouraged to
explain fully new concepts.
The other interesting aspect here is that we now know this idea was
described in 1912...how?
Because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal and has thus
endured 94 years so far. I seem to remember some pooh-poohing of this
suggestion when proposed as appropriate for Frank. Perhaps the value
of publication in such journals has been supported by this revelation.
The advantage of peer review before publication is that the process
(should) ensure that the idea is complete (whole), is well expressed,
and (hopefully) able to be demonstrated. It makes a good idea better,
while weeding out the others.
Which brings us full circle to the shortcomings of the expression of
this idea as presented.
100% for ingenuity, Frank; but only 30% for clear expression.
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To unsubscribe, send email to NavListfirstname.lastname@example.org