Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: Star-star distances for arc error
    From: Bill B
    Date: 2009 Jun 24, 04:56 -0400

    Douglas wrote:
    > I have tried it and I don't rate it as practical...
    I have no intentions of being argumentative here, but rather of repeating
    the old saw, "Don't blame poor craftsmanship on poor tools.  If you doubt
    that, try placing a fine tool in the hands of a poor craftsman."
    Using star-to-star distances to measure accuracy along the arc is not easy,
    but can be precise.
    There are two challenges. The first is predicting the star-to-star
    distances. An internationally known math professor and contributor to the
    list (Alex) and I compared our spreadsheets (mine with a refraction formula
    provided by Alex from a text that calculated theoretical to observed as
    opposed to flipping the almanac observed to theoretical), plus corrections
    for altitude, pressure and temperature.  In all cases we were within 0.1
    minute of each other once we identified the glitches in our spreadsheets.
    So much for prediction.
    The second challenge is observation.  This requires a good bit of practice
    and there are many tricks/techniques to be learned and practiced.  Alex and
    I spent many hours with at least two sextants (usually a Sno-T and and Astra
    IIIB) with our usual three scopes--and for a period of time with five
    scopes, two of which we were evaluating for a manufacturer.
    I can tell you that no matter what the combination of scopes and sextants,
    our observations agreed within 0.1 to 0.2 minutes of an arc for any star
    pair, and we did find a strange spot on my sextant around the 90d mark that
    was a full minute off.
    IMHO there are personal errors, there are ghosts in the machine that are not
    detected by bench tests or recorded on certificates; but if you cannot sit
    down with a good sextant and artificial horizon at a known location on land
    and (with averaging) come within 0.3 minutes of your location with an LOP
    the problem is most likely not with the instrument, but rather with your
    technique and field calibration. I do not accept 1.5 minutes error in a
    modern sextant as reasonable.
    Again my opinion, but if you gain a "mastery" on land or shore you can
    eliminate a lot of slop on the water, and focus on the variables that cause
    you pain afloat.
    Bill B.
    Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
    To post, email NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, email NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site