Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

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

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Thoughts on Celestial.
    From: Brad Morris
    Date: 2012 Nov 1, 07:32 -0700

    I consider this to be entirely amusing!  Are you really worried that you are inside or outside a cocked hat?

    Celestial was designed for deep water ocean crossings.  So plus or minus 10 miles is good for fix.  Draw two longitude lines, one at +10 the other at -10. Do the same for latitude.  Look at the size of that box compared to your cocked hat.  It should be enormous!

    If you have eliminated systemic errors, and we are only concerned with measurement errors on the order of 1 to 2 arc minutes, then the cocked hat is small compared to the large box.

    Yes, you do have to select the numerical answer.  Yes, you wish to get the "correct" answer on your examination.  But as a practical matter, it matters little.

    You are somewhere in that box.  Want to get closer?  Get a theodolite and a tripod.  Want to do that in the ocean?  Get a GPS.

    Tempest in a teapot. 

    Respectfully
    Brad Morris

    On Nov 1, 2012 9:40 AM, "David Fleming" <d.l.fleming.1@gmail.com> wrote:

    We can categorize errors as random or systematic. Random errors have equal probability of being positive or negative. If the standard deviation of the random error distribution exceeds the precision (size of smallest division on the scale) of the measurement then by averaging a series of measurements on a single body when can minimize the random error down to the level of the precision of the instrument. By plotting altitude versus time we can spot potential mistakes ie outliers not part of a random distribution. Such measurements are mistakes and should not be included in averaging.

    Systematic errors will still remain.

    For systematic errors we may or may not know what they depend on. If we are worried about sun heating the sextant causing a shift in our readings, absent measuring the sextant temperature and having a model for the error as a function of temperature we will be unable to deal with such errors. In the case of heating it is not connected azimuth so it tells us nothing about being inside or outside of the cocked hat.

    For something like index error(which we should have eliminated down to the precision of our measurement) but if we made a mistake in that factor then that error affects all measurements the same. Likewise, anomalous refraction ( in Dip) will affect all measurements the same and the placing of a fix at points inside or outside the cocked hat based on azimuths is a sensible procedure.

    Sextant calibration measurements as was common with older instruments are systematic but must be applied to each measurement. They vary with altitude rather than being constant for all azimuths.

    Dave Fleming
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
    Members may optionally receive posts by email.
    To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    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:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    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