NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: accuracy of sights and averaging
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2010 Dec 19, 13:31 +1100
So far, Frank has declined to elaborate further, which is, from the viewpoint of anyone who is interested in understanding just what it is that he is talking about, somewhat disappointing. So how about it, Frank? What are you talking about?
To my mind there is not much point in posting bald statements like those above if you won't, or can't, explain your ideas when asked.
When you do this, I suggest, you perform a disservice to us all. And, not least, to yourself.
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2010 Dec 19, 13:31 +1100
Frank Reed recently (6 December) wrote:You can calculate this sloping line either by using a unique equation (not complicated, but you have to dig it up and remember it every time) OR, NEARLY AS EASY, and generally more accurate,
Leading me to ask a somewhat obvious question:
Why more accurate?
Frank's post continued:
You can't just pare away any and all sights that are inconsistent with a nice line. You need to use a careful and rigorously applied system for removing bad sights
Resulting in a further, although just as obvious query from me:
And what might such a "system" comprise?
Frank further opined:
That's why any such removal system has to be decided on in advance and applied according to the rule without exception.
Which, naturally enough, resulted in:
What does a "removal system" mean? Which rule?
So far, Frank has declined to elaborate further, which is, from the viewpoint of anyone who is interested in understanding just what it is that he is talking about, somewhat disappointing. So how about it, Frank? What are you talking about?
To my mind there is not much point in posting bald statements like those above if you won't, or can't, explain your ideas when asked.
When you do this, I suggest, you perform a disservice to us all. And, not least, to yourself.
