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
    Name or NavList Code:
    Email:
       
    Reply
    Re: accuracy of sights and averaging
    From: Peter Fogg
    Date: 2010 Dec 6, 10:41 +1100
    Attention Bill in NZ:  You will note that Alan, quite rightly, has not been dissuaded from putting his head above the parapet by the fear of some blistering verbal salvo.  Your concern is quite misguided.

    On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Peter Fogg <piterr11@gmail.com> wrote:
    Alan, I'm confident that others will chime in with averaging suggestions, but as an alternative why don't you try graphing those sights and comparing them with the slope of that body's apparent rise or fall over the time of your sextant shots.  You will end up with a picture of your sights, which could offer you with much potentially useful information to use in analysing those sights assisted by some insight the picture will provide as to how consistent, or not, they were.  All you need is some graph paper and the formula for deriving that slope (discussed here quite recently).


    On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Alan <alan202@verizon.net> wrote:

    Some here have suggested averaging the times and Hs of a series of sextant shots, as a way of improving accuracy of results. Sounds reasonable, though this opinion seems less than universally shared, so I tried, as follows.

    Re the times, I separated hours, minutes and seconds, a series of 5 shots was available, adding the seconds, and dividing by 5. Next, adding the minutes, again dividing by 5. Next adding the hours, dividing by 5. Minutes and hours were adjusted as required.

    Respecting Hs, expressed in Degrees, Minutes and tenths, I added the minutes and tenths, and divided by 5. Next I added the degrees, and divided by 5.

    Having obtained averages for both time and Hs, these numbers were used to reduce the sights. Turns out that the intercept, difference between Hc and Ho were quite large, much larger than when individual shots were reduced.

    Assuming that I haven't blown the "math", I haven't noticed any glaring computational errors, where might the problem lie? Anyone have any ideas?

    Thanks for attention, response, and any suggestions orcorrections.

    Alan

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    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?

    Get a NavList ID Code

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

    A NavList ID Code guarantees your identity in NavList posts and allows faster posting of messages.

    Retrieve a NavList ID Code

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

    Email Settings

    NavList ID 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