Next message: Johan Linnér: "Re: Computer generated Almanac"
Am only too happy to give this a rest now, agree it has become 'une
conversation de sourds', a conversation between deaf people. Applaud your
decision to get the book, hopefully try it out, and then be in a position to
make up your own mind based on that experience.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor J. Kenchington" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Significance of azimuth errors, was : Principles and Being
Practical
> 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
>
>
