sheesh, jeffies, are you really as dense as you are telling us? In other
words, are you so dense you don't even understand you are dense?

or are you a pig of a sophist?

What part of "math problem" do you not understand?

You don't have to be embarrassed that you don't understand "set and drift"
problems; all you have to do is take a Power Squadron course - the nice folks
in
the blue jackets have a special version that doesn't require any "math."



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you seem totally incapable of rational discussion. Everything was
in
there, but displayed so that the math was in the background where it
belonged.

it was not a question on a CG Master's test, that needed -- to pass the
test --
an answer out to 1,000 decimal places. It was a question of How rather
than
What.

See? even now, this moment, you are so confused you are unable to
understand
the two paragraphs above.

Sorry, Jaxie, it was a was a well posed math problem; a variant of the
classic
"set and drift" problem. The fact that you don't recognize it, let alone
have
no idea how to solve it, is pretty pathetic. The fact that you don't even
appreciate Donal's approach as a solution cast considerable doubt on
whether
you've ever learned the rudiments of piloting or navigation. Its really
looking
like you just make this stuff up.

You get one point for a fair guess, but in sum, still a failing grade.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
it was a well posed mathematical problem.

jeffie, the assumptions were just assumptions, therefore the answer can
be
no
more accurate than the product of the least accurate assumptions.

You
ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case.

There was no complicating issue. It was nothing but assumptions to
start
with.
I dealt with the simpler case of a 90* shift in course rather than a
100*
shift because while the concept was unchanged, the math became more
simple
and
thus did not stand out from its rightful place in the background.

You were 10% off in
the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction.

there was no speed and no direction. It was just a question as to "how
could
it happen?". you solved precisely to arrive at a vagueness.

You the ignored the
second part because it required some actual math.

I left the second part because it came to the same conclusion.


Donal solved both problems
using a proper navigational method,

there is no "proper navigational method", for the question was "how
could
it
happen?"

though I think his accuracy could have been
better.

you mean his *precision* could have been better. His accuracy could not
improve because the problem started with inaccurate data.

I simply provided the proper mathematical solution.

there is not "proper mathematical solution" to assumptions.

I sorry if a bit of trig is
beyond you.

beyond me? *you* were the one who didn't notice the trig was still
there,
but
presented in a fashion to keep it in the background where it belonged.

BTW, given the numbers you provided, why do you think this was "an
eddy"
and
not
the Gulf Stream itself?

because, the shift to an eastward course happened quickly enough so that
the
"averaging" algarithm on two gps's -- each from a different manufacturer
--
caught the course change at the nearly the very same instant. I looked
up
to
say my gps went idiotic maybe a half second before the other guy looked
to
say
the same thing of his gps. the Gulf Stream would have to very
dramatically
change course in a very short period of time. Eddies, on the other
hand,
do
form quickly and are much smaller so it is easier to sail in or out of
one
in
a
short distance. Keep in mind that we did not change our heading, nor
did
we
notice a change in cloud position relative to the mast/sails.