NavList:

   

Reply

Frank, you wrote:
"I apologize if my quick reply caused you any confusion."

No apologies needed, your reply was confusing, but didn't confuse me. You
yourself were confusing reasons "mathematical" and "practical" because you
jumped to conclusions without addressing the possibility that there might be
a "mathematical reason" to the caution mentioned in the German manual.

You commented further:
"...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"."

This was no "account" but a serious treatment by professionals writing a
standard textbook for the German Navy. Why should this account be "muddled"?
I am inclined to believe that you have absolutely no idea to which extent
error analysis of different methods of position determination was going on
in the circles of German navigational schools at that time. Just have a look
at the volumes of the "Annalen der Hydrographie und maritimen Meteorologie"
of the late 19th and early 20th century. Or browse the "Mittheilungen aus
dem Gebiete des Seewesens", the Austrian counterpart, not to mention the
publication "Aus dem Archiv der Deutschen Seewarte".

And you conclude:
"I can only speculate since: 1) I don't have the original text and 2) I
don't read much German."

That's right: You're speculating. But I was asking the mathematical minds of
this group - including you - whether there might be a mathematical reason -
revealed by error analysis and a close look at the properties of the
formulae used - for the caution cited by Kent's colleague. I've sent the
scan so have a go at it.

Best regards
Wolfgang



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

   

Reply