| > In a perfect world they drift less than a minute per day... A minute per day would be far too much drift for navigation, wouldn't it? From Wikipedia [1]: > For every four seconds that the time source is in error, the east–west position may be off by up to just over one nautical mile as the angular speed of Earth is latitude dependent. That makes me think a minute might be your budget for an entire voyage? But I don't know much about navigation. And it is beside the point, your argument isn't changed if we put in a different constant, so I only mention out of interest. > Having three lets you know which one failed. I guess I hadn't considered when it stops for a minute and then continues ticking steadily, and you would want to discard the measurement from the faulty watch. But if I just bring one watch as the expression councils, isn't that even worse? I don't even know it malfunctioned and if it failed entirely I don't have any reference for the time at the port. My interpretation had been that you look back and forth between the watches unable to make a decision, which doesn't matter if you always split the difference, but I see your point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_chronometer |
Even that was much better than the dead-reckoning they had to do in bluewater before working chronometers were invented. Your ship's "position" would be a triangle that might have sides ten miles long at lower latitudes.