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.

Your accuracy was only slightly better than jaxie's guess.

what guess? 5^2 + 5^2 = 50 and the square root of 50 is just a little over 7.
you can do that one in your head in less than a second or two.

You'd better hope mensa doesn't read this.

Hope you can recover.

SV

"JAXAshby" wrote

I went idiotic maybe a half second before the other guy

Come off it Jax,

That's twice now that you've pull the eddy gambit; Both time with the
same 45* angles. Find a different solution for your Math. Not all Eddies
create 90 Deg course changes. Time to try something different.

Take your baggage away some the Gulf Stream. By the way Jax, if you were
200 miles offshore you were most like on the East side of the stream.

OT

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.

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.

Jax, you Math is screwed up. If you're using sin and Cosin you need to
be figuring on a right triangle. If a=b and you say angle sin c can't be
the diameter of the circle.


olde thom, you don't *have* to use sin and cosin on a right triangle. You
_can_, but you don't *have* to. In fact, the math is easily done in the head
if you don't.


your
leeway wake would be obvious

there was no leeway wake, olde thom, because the water was moving. that's what
an eddy is, water moving.

if you were
200 miles offshore you were most like on the East side of the stream.

yes, and if we were 5,000 miles offshore we would have been in eastern Europe.

never said we were 200 miles offshore.

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.

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:18:37 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:

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."

I tried to suggest that already, Jeff, but I think Jax has "issues"
with people in uniform In all honesty, though, do you think jax
being lost at sea trying to figure out where he screwed up his square
roots would be a bad thing?



"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.