NavList:

   

Reply

Wolfgang, you wrote:
"I think Frank's response to Kent's post may be misleading"

I apologize if my quick reply caused you any confusion.

And after quoting the book (thanks!), you wrote:
"That - to me - seem to be "reasons mathematical" not "practical". But I
leave this to the mathematical minds of this group, as I am more of a
historical bent, as you will remember."

In the second part of that earlier post, I mentioned that material on lunars 
written as late as 1906 should not necessarily be trusted since it's so long 
after the period when lunars were commonly used. The accounts from that time 
are sometimes "muddled". And this appears to be an example of just the sort 
of thing I was talking about. The author may have confused the known 
practical popularity of lunar observations around 90 degrees with some 
imagined flaw in the formulas. I can only speculate since: 1) I don't have 
the original text and 2) I don't read much German. But if you have the time 
and the inclination, perhaps you could scan the relevant pages. It wouldn't 
be necessary to post a full translation since I'm sure some other NavList 
member would volunteer for that.

-FER




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

   

Reply