|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: Explanation by Mr. Stark needed
From: Royer, Doug (doug.royer@XXX.XXX)
Date: Fri Jun 13 2003 - 13:39:22 EDT
Jared,I appologize.I missed the post yesterday.Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Jared Sherman [mailto:jared.sherman@XXX.XXX]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 16:34
To: doug.royer@XXX.XXX
Subject: Re: Explanation by Mr. Stark needed
<Jared,I'm still waiting for your responce to my inquiry reguarding the
double 4 sight round example.>
Doug, I thought I had answered that. You're referring to your message
saying:
<<Jared,you bet.I believe I understand what you're saying.Critique what I
think you're saying.One takes 4 sights in a round not spaced 90* apart but
each one at some degree of seperation.One then takes 2 sights of the same
body at each Zn and works the plot the same way as if takeing 8 sights
evenly spaced.
As for the spaceing of Zn's by divideing the number into 360*,it's a decient
proceedure used insure a workable Zn spread.I've encountered the same thing
on study material.I believe it is used to teach the student reduction
mechanics but is not very practical in real use.Even on a starry cloudless
night why would a person spend the time to do a 5,6,7,8 or an infinite
number of sights in a round when a 1 or 2 sight round combined with an
advance or a maximum 3 to 4 sight round would give a very workable MPP.It
would,in my opinion,be smarter to do a number of smaller number sight rounds
throughout the day instead of all at once.>>
to which I answered:
<<Doug-
<It would,in my opinion,be smarter to do a number of smaller number sight
rounds
throughout the day instead of all at once.> Perhaps so, but if one has been
in motion all
day that introduces new sources for error (speed and distance run) so the
chance to try
plotting a neat cluster of tightly intersecting lines confirming each other
is not quite
the same.>>
Or was there a specific point you wanted a response to?
|