A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Don Seltzer
Date: 2016 Jun 9, 11:03 -0400
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:38 AM, Brad Morris <NoReply_Morris@fer3.com> wrote:
There appear to be typographical errors in that text.
The counter reads in degrees to within ±0.02" or ±72 seconds.
Shouldn't it read to ±0.02°, not ±0.02"?
The maximum reading is 359.88 degrees.
Shouldn't it read to 359.98 degrees?
Obviously, this takes nothing away from the intent or data of the paragraph. I just puzzled over it for a moment or two until it made sense.
BradOn Jun 8, 2016 7:55 PM, "Don Seltzer" <NoReply_Seltzer@fer3.com> wrote:On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Gary LaPook <NoReply_LaPook@fer3.com> wrote:I wonder what what level of precision they achieved (needed) for this method of measuring angles to celestial objects.It doesn't exactly answer the intent of your question, but I did dig up the following:
A reticle control enables manual rotation of the reticle for use in lunar surface alignments. A counter on the left side of the unit, provides angular readout of the reticle rotation. The counter reads in degrees to within ±0.02" or ±72 seconds. The maximum reading is 359.88 degrees, then the Counter returns to 0 degrees. Interpolation is possible to within ±0.01 degrees.Don Seltzer