Math Problem
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
And Donal did it blindfolded.

.... and pi**ed .... (on the back of an envelope!!)


Regards


Donal
--





SV

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
This was not a vague question, it was a well posed mathematical problem.
You
ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case. You were 10%
off in
the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction. You the ignored
the
second part because it required some actual math. Donal solved both
problems
using a proper navigational method, though I think his accuracy could
have
been
better.

I simply provided the proper mathematical solution. I sorry if a bit of
trig is
beyond you.

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





"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
donny, jeffies, you guys are arguing a case-specific, tightly defined
issue.
Stand back a couple feet and deal with the concept. Gotta remember
that
the
original assumptions were nothing more than assumptions, therefore
while
precision can be obtained accuracy can not.

Since no one seems willing to do this probably, here are the
answers:

Excuse me???

Define "properly"! I worked it out using a Breton plotter. That
*is* the
proper way to do it.




Regards


Donal
--

Math Problem
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Donal was the only person besides to even attempt both problems. He did
it
graphically, which is appropriate. I worked it out with trig to double
check
Donal's work.

Hey! I'd be grateful if you would stop using me to back up your position.
You wrote off my initial answer as being little better than Jax's. I think
that you must be feeling a bit desperate if you are now trying to use me in
your argument against Jax.

I worked out my answer using a Breton plotter, and a bit of paper, at 20
minutes to midnight, on a Saturday, after a meal and a bottle of wine. You
used log tables, at 9:30 am. I feel that I have nothing to be ashamed of.

I don't consider log tables to be part of the traditional navivator's
toolbox.

I've done this sort of nav for real, at sea.. .... many times. I do it to
within 1* of accuracy. If you need to use log tables, *or* if you need to
be able to calculate square roots, then you shouldn't consider yourself to
be capable of doing navigation. You are both as bad as each other.

Regards


Donal
--

DICLAIMER
 

You are finaly showing some intelligence Jax. keep it up.

Regards

Donal

"JAXAshby" wrote in message ...
kates, I didn't even see "joe's" post, probably because I blocked the id
address of the clown who has been posting as everyone else. Cut the number of
posts I do see by half.

Math Problem
 

sure. sq rt 50 = sq rt 25 * sq rt 2

Unlike the square root of 50, I think that the square root of 2 has some
practical applications.

but still you can't have an opinion of a number.

Math Problem
 

donny, sq rt 50 is easy to do in one's head.

besides, it was not a navigational problem.

Hey! I'd be grateful if you would stop using me to back up your position.
You wrote off my initial answer as being little better than Jax's. I think
that you must be feeling a bit desperate if you are now trying to use me in
your argument against Jax.

I worked out my answer using a Breton plotter, and a bit of paper, at 20
minutes to midnight, on a Saturday, after a meal and a bottle of wine. You
used log tables, at 9:30 am. I feel that I have nothing to be ashamed of.

I don't consider log tables to be part of the traditional navivator's
toolbox.

I've done this sort of nav for real, at sea.. .... many times. I do it to
within 1* of accuracy. If you need to use log tables, *or* if you need to
be able to calculate square roots, then you shouldn't consider yourself to
be capable of doing navigation. You are both as bad as each other.

Regards


Donal
--

Math Problem
 

"Donal" wrote ...


... and pi**ed .... (on the back of an envelope!!)

and then mailed it to jax?

SV

Math Problem
 

Hey, I thought you'd be happy that I endorsed your approach as being appropriate
while onboard. I'm certainly not "desperate," since its pretty clear to
everyone that jaxie is just doing his typical jackass thing.

BTW, I tried my graphical method this morning - dividers on the compass rose -
and with a clear head and two cups of coffee, had no trouble getting a very
accurate result. Of course, in practice one usually doesn't need to know the
strength of a current to 1%, but it isn't impossible to calculate it.

I'd certainly agree that all navigators must know how to do "set and drift"
problems graphically. But there are also a large number of navigators that use
computers or calculators, so using tools like this are not out of the question.
And the trig involved is really quite simple. I see nothing wrong with keeping
in practice by solving a few problems a year with this method.

BTW, I didn't use "log tables," its been a very long time since I've done that!
However, the tables, along with trig tables, have been published in Bowditch and
other navigation texts for over 200 years. They certainly ARE part of the
traditional navigator's toolbox.



"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Donal was the only person besides to even attempt both problems. He did
it
graphically, which is appropriate. I worked it out with trig to double
check
Donal's work.

Hey! I'd be grateful if you would stop using me to back up your position.
You wrote off my initial answer as being little better than Jax's. I think
that you must be feeling a bit desperate if you are now trying to use me in
your argument against Jax.

I worked out my answer using a Breton plotter, and a bit of paper, at 20
minutes to midnight, on a Saturday, after a meal and a bottle of wine. You
used log tables, at 9:30 am. I feel that I have nothing to be ashamed of.

I don't consider log tables to be part of the traditional navivator's
toolbox.

I've done this sort of nav for real, at sea.. .... many times. I do it to
within 1* of accuracy. If you need to use log tables, *or* if you need to
be able to calculate square roots, then you shouldn't consider yourself to
be capable of doing navigation. You are both as bad as each other.

Regards


Donal
--

Math Problem
 

Right, jaxie, and everyone thinks you're the "definitive reference" for
navigation, mathematics, and science.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffie, listen to me. every last person who reads this ng and who has
actually
studied physics or math KNOWS that your claim of a degree (BS, let alone BS)
is
bogus just by reading your nonsense below. utter nonsense, to everyone who
has
studied even one semestrer in what you claim to have a degree in.

Your complete lack of familiarity of the underlying and overlying concepts
makes a lie of your claim.

Discussing concepts with you is like discussing auto mechanics with an art
history major.

Math Problem
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
sure. sq rt 50 = sq rt 25 * sq rt 2

Unlike the square root of 50, I think that the square root of 2 has some
practical applications.

but still you can't have an opinion of a number.

7 is a lucky number. Do you agree?



Regards


Donal
--

Math Problem
 

see what you did donny? give'd jeffies hiss chance ta told uses jest how
smarts he bees. but dens the dods says sumpin stew ped likes:

Of course, in practice one usually doesn't need to know the
strength of a current to 1%, but it isn't impossible to calculate it.

in fact, soooooo stupid jeffies doesn't even know how stupid.

geesh that boy is dumb. 1% of a guessed-at current of 5 (yup, five!) knot
current is a **calculated** guessed-at 0.05 knots. great precision, but no
accuracy. It started with a guess, so it can't get better.

but it does show that jeffies is one bight boy. no wonder he carries a 200
year old copy of Bowditch and "other navigation texts" to motor from one
anchorage to the next.

However, the tables, along with trig tables, have been published in Bowditch
and
other navigation texts for over 200 years. They certainly ARE part of the
traditional navigator's toolbox.