 Check out the bookstore at IRBS.com |
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: Trevor J. Kenchington (no email)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 22:01:05 EDT
Peter,
I really should leave this alone, since I am confident that it is clear
to just about everyone on the list bar (apparently) yourself, but the
issue being bounced around is _not_ an ambiguity. It is an estimation
error.
While I intend to buy a copy, I do not have the book in question. Hence,
I cannot be sure of just what it says. However, the instructions for
resolving the ambiguity which you keep on referring to would seem to be
just that: instructions for resolving an ambiguity (presumably between
quadrants). They are not, by the author's own admission, instructions
for avoiding the estimation error which George has identified.
As you note, this has become a huge kerfuffle over not very much at all.
The not very much is a warning to users that one particular method has
the potential to introduce significant errors under certain well-defined
conditions. That should be straightforward. The kerfuffle comes from
your insistence, and nobody else's, on making a big issue over this one,
straightforward point. Indeed, you have now made such an issue of it
that you have insisted on inserting your same message into a distinct
thread, which I had given a new subject line precisely because I wanted
to be able to deal with the implications of an erroneous azimuth
estimate (regardless of the origin of that error) without being drawn
into your persistent insistence on ambiguities where there are errors.
Unfortunately, I failed.
Trevor Kenchington
Peter Fogg wrote:
> What seems so unfair about this huge kerfuffle (about not very much at all)
> is that if only the Weir Diagrams were on offer then that would presumably
> have been just fine with the critics - haven't heard about their
> shortcomings. But since another, simpler method is also provided that works,
> once again, just fine in the vast majority of cases and has instructions
> provided for resolving ambiguity near the prime vertical then the whole
> method is denounced as 'VERY bad'. Which is nonsense.
--
Trevor J. Kenchington PhD
Gadus Associates, Office(902) 889-9250
R.R.#1, Musquodoboit Harbour, Fax (902) 889-9251
Nova Scotia B0J 2L0, CANADA Home (902) 889-3555
Science Serving the Fisheries
http://home.istar.ca/~gadus
|