[time-nuts] Are minutes more important in astronomy than seconds and hours ?

[Dana Whitlow]

Celestial navigation users might object to the notion that seconds are not
important.
That is, if you can find anybody still exercising that art.  In that arena,
folks are
taught to read seconds first, then minutes, then hours.

Depending on the latitude, one second can lead to something like 1/4 mile
position error.  So, realistically, one *might* tolerate a very few seconds
error
without exceeding reasonable error expectations, but certainly no more.

Dana


On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 9:03 AM Matt Osborn <kc0ukk at msosborn.com> wrote:

> Pretty nice, I've always wondered why clocks weren't designed this
> way.  Hours last too long and estimating minutes from the hour hand is
> minimally useful while seconds are too fast and mostly irrelevant for
> human use.
>
> Reading the time as so many minutes past whichever hour is very
> natural and informative.
>
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:29:09 +0100, Jean-Louis Rault <f6agr at orange.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi all
> >
> >A friend of mine offered me a secondary electric clock that was in use
> >at Observatoire Royal de Belgique, in Brussels, at the end of the 19th
> >century.
> >
> >The manufacturer is Peyer Favarger & Co, Neuchatel, Switzerland.
> >
> >I'm wondering why the largest hand is used for minutes, and the smaller
> >hands for hours and seconds
> >
> >Any idea ?
> >
> >Jean-Louis
>
> -- kc0ukk at msosborn dot com
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at lists.febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> and follow the instructions there.
>