NavList:

   

Reply

Fred

Thank you for your reply.

I did understand that a replica is what it says it is: a replica from
something original without the features.
What triggered my question in the first place was the weight of the replica.
Weight is something which plays a minor role in the discussions we see here
about the plastic sextant but to me it is important.

If you use your sextant on a platform which is not stable than a sextant
which has a certain weight will help you to obtain a more accurate
observation because it is more stable.
I know there is a sextant from John Bird ( around 1770) which has a "stick"
on the backside to make it more stable.

I suppose there is an optimum weight for a sextant : on one side not too
heavy to handle and on the other side heavy enough to obtain a good
observation.
I remember when we started to use these light East German sextants that this
was exactly  what was noticed: easy to lift but more difficult to make a
good observation

Willem Piccer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Hebard" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: beginner


> Willem,
>
> My understanding is that the replicas are not accurate and are not
> suitable for any sort of measurement whatsoever.
>
> The box sextant was an angle-measuring device used by explorers on
> land.  It was used as one might use a transit or theodolite, where it
> was impractical to cart those heavier instruments --the box sextant
> could be carried in a pocket.  I don't believe the accuracy was high
> enough for use at sea, except perhaps in emergency situations, more on
> the order of degrees than arcminutes.
>
> Fred
>
> On Sep 16, 2005, at 9:59 AM, Piccer wrote:
>
> > I followed the dicussion on the plastic sextant with a lot of interest.
> >
> > At home I have a replica of what is called a " box" sextant.
> > I never tried to use it, but can somebody tell me if this is a serious
> > instrument?
> >
> > The only reference I have found is on the website of Stanley, London :
> > they sell  the replica's
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> > Willem Piccer
>

   

Reply