NavList:

   

Reply

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