NavList:

   

Reply

Renee wrote-

| Since we don't have a reference for the last date of publication of the
| lunar distance tables in HM Nautical Almanac, I'll take that factoid out.

Well, we now have four such references, contradictory.

I suggest you leave it for now. It's one of those "factoids" that doesn't
really need to be stated precisely; all that's really necessary is to give a
rough idea, such as "in the early years of the 20th century". But as it CAN
be verified, we might as well get it right. I have emailed Catherine
Hohenkerk, of HMNAO, and I expect she will come up with the goods soon,
unless she happens to be away.

| I think the "Errors" section needs a rewrite.  And the facts need some
| support.

| The "method" section is about how lunars are done.  It does not make clear
| that this has changed over the years.

Well, it didn't change much, over the "lunar period" of a century or so. At
first, there was only the Hadley quadrant (= octant) to use, but very soon
the brass sextant arrived, with greater range and precision. Planet
predictions appeared at some date, which I don't know. A great variety of
methods for clearing evolved, to minimise the workload. But that's all that
I can think of. What else do you have in mind? There are, of course recent
changes in the way the job can now be done, using computers and computed
positions. It depends on how much emphasis you wish to put on the modern
"sextant hobbyist" aspect of lunars, compared with their historical
importance as a navigational tool.

The "history" section does not give
| any useful information about how the use of lunar distance in navigation
has
| changed over the years.  I agree there needs to be a change.

There's certainly a case for crediting some of the characters involved,
including the French contribution (La Caille), Mayer in Germany, Maskelyne
in Britain.

I've started a
| discussion on the article's discussion page.  It seems polite, since I am
| proposing undoing the work of "Jrvz", who added the bit about the method
of
| intercepts, and the link to "longitude by chronometer".

Yes. No doubt, the reference to intercepts was well-meaning, but it distorts
the historical sequence.

| I have put in the [[citation needed]] tags.   While I agree that
"reputable"
| sources can sometimes get things wrong, I believe checking facts is best,
| even if I am sure I already know the topic I'm writing about.  I don't
have
| references for the facts that I've flagged "citation needed".  I was
hoping
| that other readers of the article would be able to supply some of the
| requested citations.

I support that rigorous attitude, but there comes a point where citations
can be overdone, in my view.

| I have credited Clive in the caption to the illustration.

Thanks

If he wishes to
| include his name in the illustration, I'll be happy to upload the new
| version.

Thanks. I'll ask him.

| I think the "Errors" section is hard to follow.  I do believe the
interested
| reader would benefit from references for most of the facts, but I don't
have
| access to citable sources on the topic.

Renee, please say whare you think the difficulties in understanding occur,
and I will give it a try. I have now despatched my piece for "Navigation
News" on that same topic of lunar distances, so have time to give it a bit
of thought.

George.

contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com
or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply