On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:43:02 +1100, bernardZ <BernardZ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <5krto31abrdlh9mcti2o8d0u32op62gpqd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>> Dead reckoning is *not* an accurate navigational technique. Not to
>> within one percent, not even to within ten percent. Dead reckoning is
>> what you use between visual or celestial fixes, to minimize the error
>> that accumulates between points where you actually do know where you
>> are.
>It was the most accurate available
In the sense that mercury was the most effective treatment available
for syphillis, yes.
>and using it European sailors went all round the world for example Drake.
Actually, Drake was somewhat famous for his effective use of celestial
navigation.
>It was also used by the Dutch to go to Japan and the East Indies.
They mostly used a combination of celestial navigation and pilotage.
>It took a lot of effort to do, required trained people
The physicians, surgeons, and alchemists of the age were also quite
well trained, and put a great deal of effort into their crafts.
>and was replaced by better methods in the 1800s.
No; it was replaced by better methods in the *15*00s. Specifically,
the use of the astrolabe, octant, and cross-staff to measure and track
celestial latitude. This was SOP for virtually all oceanic navigators
by 1600, and it was vastly superior to dead reckoning.
>Now let me read to you what mcv <mcvmcv@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote that sparked
>this debate off.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>While reading Asimov's _Second Foundation_, the book proudly described
>a really clever system that made it really easy for relatively untrained
>people to figure out exactly where in the galaxy they are. Before the
>invention of that item, figuring out your location took days or weeks,
>but all I was thinking was: if this process is this simple, why the
>hell isn't it automated in the first place?
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Now what exactly are you objecting too?
I am objecting to your persistent attempts to describe dead reckoning as
an accurate navigational technique, to credit the successes of navigators
like e.g. Drake to dead reckoning, and to grossly exaggerate the successes
of actual dead-reckoning navigators like e.g. Columbus.
*Whatever* inspired you to make those claims, they are in fact all wrong.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
|
