NavList:

   

Reply

Jim:

I too apologize for my overly caustic response, however, must state plainly my 
exception to the tendency so evident for name calling and somewhat less than 
polite innuendo that occurs on this List, including that which is so 
frequently exhibited by some of our more distinguished members. Most of us 
have no idea as to what the pedigree of the other correspondents may be, and 
that is perhaps as it should be to engender a sense of equality.

Unfortunately, almost if not all methods employed in celestial navigation have 
limitations attached to there use - you name it, and there is most probably 
some restriction to the universality of its application, and the 
determination of Longitude at Noon by equal altitudes is no exception. It is, 
however, the responsibility of the navigator to adapt the means to the 
necessities of any particular situation, and to properly assess the reliance 
to be vested in the means employed. There were in the past many times when 
the roughest approximation of position was better than nothing at all. The 
presence of a SatNav receiver, or what have you, does not induce the same 
urgency of need.

It is probably possible to make a case to the effect that any discussions 
regarding celestial navigation are a waste of time in this electronic era, 
but the members of this List appear to relish in hashing over methods perhaps 
long forgotten by the mainstream - else why all the talk of Lunars. Our 
deliberations, I think, are relatively harmless and certainly not 
earthshaking - so long as they are conducted in peace and harmony.

Regards,

Henry


--- On Thu, 7/10/08, James N Wilson  wrote:

> From: James N Wilson 
> Subject: [NavList 5782] Re: Noon sight for longitude
> To: NavList@fer3.com
> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 8:16 PM
> George:
>
> Thanks for coming to my defense. You stated my objections
> precisely. But
> I still must apologize for my "attack dog"
> approach. I'm expressing my
> frustration with popular articles which don't tell the
> complete story..
> I've been trying to get my point across for over twenty
> years, and
> haven't made much progress. In that old time frame, I
> criticized an
> almost identical article in Cruising World, and was rebuked
> with a note
> to the effect that if I had something of interest to their
> readers, I
> should submit it. About then, I gave up. But not
> completely. I worked in
> that same time period to get the Power Squadron to revise
> their material
> which blatantly quoted the myth. Alas, the best that I
> achieved was that
> they deleted it. Later, in my short tenure as a member of
> their Offshore
> Navigation Committee, I did manage to get the point across.
> I was asked
> to prepare a paragraph on the problem for inclusion in
> their Navigation
> course. I condensed my twelve page Navigation article to a
> paragraph,
> basically the equation for the difference between the
> measured time of
> maximum altitude and LAN, with a short lead-in and the
> nomenclature. I
> don't know if it was included in the course material. I
> wasn't welcome on
> that committee, in that I think that I was too critical. I
> did last for
> two years. I was invited because in teaching their Junior
> Navigation
> course, I noted that they didn't have a form for
> reducing their meridian
> transit sights. So, I created one, and it was immediately
> welcomed, with
> a bit of mastication, and is now a part of the course
> material. So, I did
> achieve something.
>
> Thanks again, and I again apologize for expressing my
> frustration. I
> joined this group in the hope that it might help me get my
> point across.
> I'm encouraged.
>
> Jim Wilson
> ____________________________________________________________
> Make money while staying at home.  Click here for
> information on top-notch home businesses.
 
>



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply