NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Significance of azimuth errors, was : Principles and Being Practical
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2003 Sep 8, 16:54 +1000
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2003 Sep 8, 16:54 +1000
Am only too happy to give this a rest now, agree it has become 'une conversation de sourds', a conversation between deaf people. Applaud your decision to get the book, hopefully try it out, and then be in a position to make up your own mind based on that experience. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor J. Kenchington"To: Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Significance of azimuth errors, was : Principles and Being Practical > Peter, > > I really should leave this alone, since I am confident that it is clear > to just about everyone on the list bar (apparently) yourself, but the > issue being bounced around is _not_ an ambiguity. It is an estimation > error. > > While I intend to buy a copy, I do not have the book in question. Hence, > I cannot be sure of just what it says. However, the instructions for > resolving the ambiguity which you keep on referring to would seem to be > just that: instructions for resolving an ambiguity (presumably between > quadrants). They are not, by the author's own admission, instructions > for avoiding the estimation error which George has identified. > > As you note, this has become a huge kerfuffle over not very much at all. > The not very much is a warning to users that one particular method has > the potential to introduce significant errors under certain well-defined > conditions. That should be straightforward. The kerfuffle comes from > your insistence, and nobody else's, on making a big issue over this one, > straightforward point. Indeed, you have now made such an issue of it > that you have insisted on inserting your same message into a distinct > thread, which I had given a new subject line precisely because I wanted > to be able to deal with the implications of an erroneous azimuth > estimate (regardless of the origin of that error) without being drawn > into your persistent insistence on ambiguities where there are errors. > > Unfortunately, I failed. > > > > Trevor Kenchington > > > > > Peter Fogg wrote: > > > What seems so unfair about this huge kerfuffle (about not very much at all) > > is that if only the Weir Diagrams were on offer then that would presumably > > have been just fine with the critics - haven't heard about their > > shortcomings. But since another, simpler method is also provided that works, > > once again, just fine in the vast majority of cases and has instructions > > provided for resolving ambiguity near the prime vertical then the whole > > method is denounced as 'VERY bad'. Which is nonsense. > > > -- > Trevor J. Kenchington PhD Gadus@iStar.ca > Gadus Associates, Office(902) 889-9250 > R.R.#1, Musquodoboit Harbour, Fax (902) 889-9251 > Nova Scotia B0J 2L0, CANADA Home (902) 889-3555 > > Science Serving the Fisheries > http://home.istar.ca/~gadus > >