NavList:

   

Reply

Joel,I didn't mean your approaches were off base at all.They are useful
tools and methods to know and use.I wished to relate that it is not always
possible to use all methods every time due to constraints of conditions
and/or time.I've used the methods you named.It was sound advice you
gave.Keep it up.

-----Original Message-----
From: Navigation Mailing List
[mailto:NAVIGATION-L@LISTSERV.WEBKAHUNA.COM]On Behalf Of Joel Jacobs
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 14:23
To: NAVIGATION-L@LISTSERV.WEBKAHUNA.COM
Subject: Re: Timed Noon sights for position


Doug,

I didn't mean to appear to be depreciating your approach. I was only
mentioning that I have achieved similar objectives using what I consider to
be alternative methods.

My motive was to be the second person to offer support, and encourage you to
keep trying new things.

Joel Jacobs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Royer, Doug" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Timed Noon sights for position


> There are many procedures and many ways to accomplish the same goal.In my
> origonal post on this matter I put forward this method as one of the
methods
> used.Some list members were horrified.Most times one doesn't use the Noon
> sight to obtain longitude.I wished to show that when needed(deteriorating
> conditions or circumstances)it can be used to give an approximation of
> longitude where only an estimated latitude was calculated.One more tool.
> Sometimes one doesn't have the luxury of turning the ships head from the
> trackline to obtain celestial course lines(as Joel noted)or the time to
> shoot double altitudes or multiple averaging sights.Are there pitfalls
> useing this method?You bet.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Navigation Mailing List
> [mailto:NAVIGATION-L@LISTSERV.WEBKAHUNA.COM]On Behalf Of Noyce, Bill
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 13:33
> To: NAVIGATION-L@LISTSERV.WEBKAHUNA.COM
> Subject: Re: Timed Noon sights for position
>
>
> Doug, I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but it looked as if you
> computed the time of LAN at your estimated position, then
> took a single sight at that computed time (to the best of
> your ability).  While this might provide a reasonable estimate
> of your latitude, using it for longitude involves a circular
> argument -- the only input is the time you computed, so of
> course your result is equal to your estimated longitude.
> Or was there some other procedure used to determine the "time"
> to record along with the sextant altitude?
>         -- Bill

   

Reply