Not one person
 

Not one of the Numb-Nutted gNomes of kNighted Nowhere came up with any issue
related to how RDF works or why its accuracy was rather great than two degree.

They did flail away at the wind while chasing their stubby tails.

That's because in two days ago not one of them had even google knowledge of the
subject, and even today not one of them understands even the basics.

Tomorrow you will see more Tasmanian Devil whirling from the clowns as to how
and why RDF works.

two days ago they were ignorant. Today they are amateurs. Tomorrow they are
fools.

Not one person
 

.....And you haven't come up with one fact to say it can't be better than 2
degrees, other than some dumb comparison to taking a bearing on sounds (a known
no-no), and have shown you don't know the basics of piloting, when using a
compass.

Shen

Not one person
 

shen, think about it for a minute. *Just ONE* of the issues is that a radio
compass is aligned using a magnetic compass.

think about it? how many mag compasses have seen on boats that are accurate to
2*?

Think about it more. How many helmsmen on sailboats have you seen that could
hold a course to 2* over any period of time?

Think about it. the error of the mag compass reading TIMES the error of the
helmsman gives the potential error UP TO THAT POINT. Already, you are
waaaaaaaaaay beyond 2*. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond.

Think about the additional errors associated with just the radio compass itself
and its usage.

think about it, shen.

Think.

....And you haven't come up with one fact to say it can't be better than 2
degrees, other than some dumb comparison to taking a bearing on sounds (a
known
no-no), and have shown you don't know the basics of piloting, when using a
compass.

Shen

Not one person
 

JAXAshby wrote:


Think about it. the error of the mag compass reading TIMES the error of the
helmsman gives the potential error UP TO THAT POINT.

Wrong.

Cheers
Marty

Not one person
 

oh? errors don't multiply?

What an interesting concept. Where did you learn that? From a bubble gum
wrapper?


Think about it. the error of the mag compass reading TIMES the error of
the
helmsman gives the potential error UP TO THAT POINT.

Wrong.

Cheers
Marty

Not one person
 

Jaxie, how many stupid things can you say in one post. Magnetic compasses can
certainly be accurate to 2 degrees, though I admit nowadays a lot of people
don't bother to swing the compass, what with GPS and autopilots, but in the old
days it was pretty common to have it professional done, and to check it with
known ranges at every opportunity.

Holding a course to 2 degrees may be difficult for a long period, but for the
short time needed for a bearing is not too hard.

And errors multiply??? That's one of the stupidest things you ever come out
with jaxie! Are you claiming that a 5 degree compass error and a 5 degree
course error yield a net 25 degree error??? I think that one's another keeper!

And why does RDF calibration depend on the ship's compass? There are others
ways to check for deviation that don't depend on the compass.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
shen, think about it for a minute. *Just ONE* of the issues is that a radio
compass is aligned using a magnetic compass.

think about it? how many mag compasses have seen on boats that are accurate
to
2*?

Think about it more. How many helmsmen on sailboats have you seen that could
hold a course to 2* over any period of time?

Think about it. the error of the mag compass reading TIMES the error of the
helmsman gives the potential error UP TO THAT POINT. Already, you are
waaaaaaaaaay beyond 2*. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond.

Think about the additional errors associated with just the radio compass
itself
and its usage.

think about it, shen.

Think.

....And you haven't come up with one fact to say it can't be better than 2
degrees, other than some dumb comparison to taking a bearing on sounds (a
known
no-no), and have shown you don't know the basics of piloting, when using a
compass.

Shen

Not one person
 

Subject: Not one person
From: (JAXAshby)

shen, think about it for a minute. *Just ONE* of the issues is that a radio
compass is aligned using a magnetic compass.

Not exclusively, but you knew that.
So we're sure (you tend towards weird associations), you do mean that the
(usually, on small boats) relative bearing taken from the RDF is added or
subtracted, as the case may be, to the compass heading which is corrected to
magnetic bearing or to true bearing, prior to ploting?
Silly me, that's a question.


think about it? how many mag compasses have seen on boats that are accurate
to
2*?

Quite a few.


Think about it more. How many helmsmen on sailboats have you seen that could
hold a course to 2* over any period of time?

Quite a few


Think about it. the error of the mag compass reading TIMES the error of the
helmsman gives the potential error UP TO THAT POINT. Already, you are
waaaaaaaaaay beyond 2*. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond.

You still haven't learned to use a compass for navigation, I see.
Times or plus, doesn't matter.
However, while following this thread it's become obvious that this is probably
the best you could do.


Think about the additional errors associated with just the radio compass
itself
and its usage.

I see your reading is progressing.


think about it, shen.

I have. Your biggest problems revolve around the facts that you only know what
you read, and have little if any understanding of the everyday "nuts and
bolts".
To continue to add to the list:
You don't know how to steer.
You don't know how to take bearings.
etc.

Shen

Not one person
 

jeffies, one at a time

Magnetic compasses can
certainly be accurate to 2 degrees,

we were discussing recreational sailboats here, so let's stay with the magnetic
compasses one would find on such.

but in the
old
days it was pretty common to have it professional done, and to check it with
known ranges at every opportunity.

and read by an amateur in a moving boat under at sea conditions. and how many
compasses on the boats under discussion could *you* read to 2* or even 5*?

All of them right, because you read it in a book.

until this very minute you didn't know that a compass rotates one way as th
boat goes up a wave and rotates the other way going down a wave. Same thing as
the boat rolls one way and then the other.


Holding a course to 2 degrees may be difficult for a long period, but for the
short time needed for a bearing is not too hard.

ever helmed a boat, jeffies?


And errors multiply??? That's one of the stupidest things you ever come out
with jaxie! Are you claiming that a 5 degree compass error and a 5 degree
course error yield a net 25 degree error??? I think that one's another
keeper!

jeffies, you stupid cluck. YOU claim to have a degree in physics (okay, an
arts degree and from Potato State), and if you were even qualified to take
freshman courses in the subject you wouldn't make such a dumb statement.

So, let's start by admiting you lied about what you know and what you should
know.

Then, consider this, jeffies. why is it you think a 2* error here and a 5*
error that makes for a 3* to 7* total? It does not.

Now follow this. I'll use % of error rather than * because it makes it easier
for a rank beginner math person like you.

a 2% error means the actual might be anywhere from 98% to 102%. Understand?

Now bring on the next error, of 5%. you do NOT take the 5% error against the
original 100% but rather against the 98% to 102%.

THIS MEANS you take 95% to 105% against the errored 98% to 102%. Giving you a
potential error of 0.95 times 0.98, or just over 93% on the lower side and 1.02
times 1.05 or just over 7% on the upper side.

The incremental error is small in this case because the original errors were
small AND there were just two errors to cascade. EACH succeding error is
MULTIPLIED by the total of the previous errors. A string of four or five
errors, each small, can make for a highly uncertain result.

In the case of the radio compass, yo have the error of reading the mag compass
by the helmsman, the error of maybe forgeting variation, the error in the
compass, the error of maybe local deviation, the error of the compassman in
placing the compass, the error of the helmsman in holding course, the error in
the compassman's listening to and hearding the nullness of the signal, the
error of alignment of the compass dial with the antenna, and the error of
reading the dial after the reading was taken.

Now, you HAVE AT LEAST TWO READINGS to take, *****each**** with potential
errors above.

In addition, you have the error of the boat movement, which can only be
estimated (no gps onboard, remember?)

In addition, you have more -- and potentially large -- errors if the two read
stations at not at right angles to the boat.

And why does RDF calibration depend on the ship's compass? There are others
ways to check for deviation that don't depend on the compass.

the discussion was a recreational sailboat.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
shen, think about it for a minute. *Just ONE* of the issues is that a
radio
compass is aligned using a magnetic compass.

think about it? how many mag compasses have seen on boats that are
accurate
to
2*?

Think about it more. How many helmsmen on sailboats have you seen that
could
hold a course to 2* over any period of time?

Think about it. the error of the mag compass reading TIMES the error of
the
helmsman gives the potential error UP TO THAT POINT. Already, you are
waaaaaaaaaay beyond 2*. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond.

Think about the additional errors associated with just the radio compass
itself
and its usage.

think about it, shen.

Think.

....And you haven't come up with one fact to say it can't be better than 2
degrees, other than some dumb comparison to taking a bearing on sounds (a
known
no-no), and have shown you don't know the basics of piloting, when using a
compass.

Shen

Not one person
 

you are right. it is a silly question.

shen, think about it. ******How******* did the radio compass get aligned?
duh.

shen, think about it for a minute. *Just ONE* of the issues is that a radio
compass is aligned using a magnetic compass.

Not exclusively, but you knew that.
So we're sure (you tend towards weird associations), you do mean that the
(usually, on small boats) relative bearing taken from the RDF is added or
subtracted, as the case may be, to the compass heading which is corrected to
magnetic bearing or to true bearing, prior to ploting?
Silly me, that's a question.


think about it? how many mag compasses have seen on boats that are accurate
to
2*?

Quite a few.


Think about it more. How many helmsmen on sailboats have you seen that
could
hold a course to 2* over any period of time?

Quite a few


Think about it. the error of the mag compass reading TIMES the error of the
helmsman gives the potential error UP TO THAT POINT. Already, you are
waaaaaaaaaay beyond 2*. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond.

You still haven't learned to use a compass for navigation, I see.
Times or plus, doesn't matter.
However, while following this thread it's become obvious that this is
probably
the best you could do.


Think about the additional errors associated with just the radio compass
itself
and its usage.

I see your reading is progressing.


think about it, shen.

I have. Your biggest problems revolve around the facts that you only know
what
you read, and have little if any understanding of the everyday "nuts and
bolts".
To continue to add to the list:
You don't know how to steer.
You don't know how to take bearings.
etc.

Shen

Not one person
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
Jaxie, how many stupid things can you say in one post. Magnetic compasses can
certainly be accurate to 2 degrees, though I admit nowadays a lot of people
don't bother to swing the compass, what with GPS and autopilots, but in the old
days it was pretty common to have it professional done, and to check it with
known ranges at every opportunity.

I'd still recommend checking it against known ranges, even if only to
confirm the veracity of your deviation tables/scale.

Holding a course to 2 degrees may be difficult for a long period, but for the
short time needed for a bearing is not too hard.

Too true, but Jax can't steer .... probably chases the compass.

And errors multiply??? That's one of the stupidest things you ever come out
with jaxie! Are you claiming that a 5 degree compass error and a 5 degree
course error yield a net 25 degree error??? I think that one's another keeper!

One must never question Jax's reasoning .... accept the fact it's off
the wall.


And why does RDF calibration depend on the ship's compass? There are others
ways to check for deviation that don't depend on the compass.

I think he's just getting to this part in his reading. He wasn't talking
about "calibration", he was talking about converting the relative RDF
bearing to compass bearing to magnetic bearing, so it could be plotted
..... at least, I think that's what his "align" means.
Not knowing much or having done much navigation, Jax tends use terms
that most of us wouldn't, so it sometimes takes a bit to figure how he's
applying those terms.

otn

Not one person
 

you guys keep on thinking and sometime next month you will catch on to how RDF
works and its accuracy.

I'd still recommend checking it against known ranges, even if only to
confirm the veracity of your deviation tables/scale.

He wasn't talking
about "calibration", he was talking about converting the relative RDF
bearing to compass bearing to magnetic bearing, so it could be plotted

otn

Not one person
 

"JAXAshby" babble again:m25.aol.com...
jeffies, one at a time

That's one too many for you, jaxie.


Magnetic compasses can
certainly be accurate to 2 degrees,

we were discussing recreational sailboats here, so let's stay with the
magnetic
compasses one would find on such.

I am. I think you must get yours from a Cracker Jax Box.


but in the
old
days it was pretty common to have it professional done, and to check it with
known ranges at every opportunity.

and read by an amateur in a moving boat under at sea conditions. and how many
compasses on the boats under discussion could *you* read to 2* or even 5*?

Almost every approach I've made to Maine (of several dozen) has been in flat
conditions. The point is compasses are physically capable of being that
accurate.




All of them right, because you read it in a book.

until this very minute you didn't know that a compass rotates one way as th
boat goes up a wave and rotates the other way going down a wave. Same thing
as
the boat rolls one way and then the other.

Why must there always be large waves? You're the one who gets everything from a
book. A real scary one!



Holding a course to 2 degrees may be difficult for a long period, but for the
short time needed for a bearing is not too hard.

ever helmed a boat, jeffies?

Its looking like you never have, jaxie.



And errors multiply??? That's one of the stupidest things you ever come out
with jaxie! Are you claiming that a 5 degree compass error and a 5 degree
course error yield a net 25 degree error??? I think that one's another
keeper!

jeffies, you stupid cluck. YOU claim to have a degree in physics (okay, an
arts degree and from Potato State), and if you were even qualified to take
freshman courses in the subject you wouldn't make such a dumb statement.

So, let's start by admiting you lied about what you know and what you should
know.

Then, consider this, jeffies. why is it you think a 2* error here and a 5*
error that makes for a 3* to 7* total? It does not.

Now follow this. I'll use % of error rather than * because it makes it easier
for a rank beginner math person like you.

It may be "easy" for you, but that's why you always get the wrong answer!
Directional errors are always additive, jaxie. Especially when you're trying to
show the maximum possible error. Claiming you can multiply them is just plan
stupid. Insisting on it after your error marks you as someone who hasn't
achieve junior high level


a 2% error means the actual might be anywhere from 98% to 102%. Understand?

Now bring on the next error, of 5%. you do NOT take the 5% error against the
original 100% but rather against the 98% to 102%.

THIS MEANS you take 95% to 105% against the errored 98% to 102%. Giving you a
potential error of 0.95 times 0.98, or just over 93% on the lower side and
1.02
times 1.05 or just over 7% on the upper side.

The incremental error is small in this case because the original errors were
small AND there were just two errors to cascade. EACH succeding error is
MULTIPLIED by the total of the previous errors. A string of four or five
errors, each small, can make for a highly uncertain result.

Per Centages are not the same as degrees. The fact that your answer to this
little problem is not symetrical should be a dead giveaway. If there are 5
steps and each step has a possible error of up to 2 degrees, the total possible
error is 10 degrees. However, one could show that the typical error is actually
much smaller than that.



In the case of the radio compass, yo have the error of reading the mag compass
by the helmsman, the error of maybe forgeting variation, the error in the
compass, the error of maybe local deviation, the error of the compassman in
placing the compass, the error of the helmsman in holding course, the error in
the compassman's listening to and hearding the nullness of the signal, the
error of alignment of the compass dial with the antenna, and the error of
reading the dial after the reading was taken.

Yes, all those errors of forgetting things. You have a lot of experiance in
this area. All you proving is that an idiot like you is prone to stupid
mistakes.


Now, you HAVE AT LEAST TWO READINGS to take, *****each**** with potential
errors above.

Why is that? Is it because you have never navigated before? Is it necessary to
use two radio bearings?



In addition, you have the error of the boat movement, which can only be
estimated (no gps onboard, remember?)

Why is that relevant? Are you worried about Doppler effects?




In addition, you have more -- and potentially large -- errors if the two read
stations at not at right angles to the boat.

Why do you need two stations? You've never navigated or piloted, have you?




And why does RDF calibration depend on the ship's compass? There are others
ways to check for deviation that don't depend on the compass.

the discussion was a recreational sailboat.

What does that have to do with it? You can do the calibration at a known
location while at anchor. Your grasp on this is rather tenuous - is that
because you just read about it yesterday?

And, all of this is ignoring several fundamental facts. First, any information
you derive from RDF is better than not having it at all. You haven't given any
alternative other than to Turn Back! Next, the magnitude of the error is not
that important for an approach. Eventually, you will be guided into your
destination. If one bearing is off by 10 degrees it won't make that much
difference. Look at a chart of Matinicus and consider an approach from Cape
Ann. And finally, the bottom line is that RDF was used successfully by
thousands of mariners in vessels large and small. Arguing that it just doesn't
work is stupid!

Not one person
 

Directional errors are always additive

jeffies, please don't bother to post again. you have long ago proven you are
unable to hold a discussion.

There are times when I believe you post stupidly just to be a wothless dip****.
There are other times I feel you really don't have the mental capacity to
drive a car after dark. If you don't post anymore, at least we can hope you
are just plain dumber than deer in the headlights.

Not one person
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
Directional errors are always additive

jeffies, please don't bother to post again. you have long ago proven you are
unable to hold a discussion.

This is your little way of saying you concede totally. Yes, we all understand.



There are times when I believe you post stupidly just to be a wothless
dip****.
There are other times I feel you really don't have the mental capacity to
drive a car after dark. If you don't post anymore, at least we can hope you
are just plain dumber than deer in the headlights.


So tell us all, jaxie, how much 3 degrees time 5 degrees?

Not one person
 

This is your little way of saying you concede totally.

not at all. it does say trying to hold a discussion with you is less
productive than trying to hold a discussion with a television.

So tell us all, jaxie, how much 3 degrees time 5 degrees?


the question lacks enough information to make sense. you would know that
jeffies if you had taken even one of those courses you claim your degree is in.

Not one person
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
So tell us all, jaxie, how much 3 degrees time 5 degrees?
the question lacks enough information to make sense.


There's plenty of information. You said:

"Think about it. the error of the mag compass reading TIMES the error of the
helmsman gives the potential error UP TO THAT POINT. Already, you are
waaaaaaaaaay beyond 2*. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond."

How do you multiply the two errors? Is the total possible error more or less
than the sum?

Not one person
 

jeffies you dolt, the context was there in my statement but uttterly lacking in
your question.

my statement, with its contextual information, was fully explained. you are
welcome to go back through the posts to that explanation if you are so
inclined. otherwise, we will just keep on considering you a blithering idiot.

So tell us all, jaxie, how much 3 degrees time 5 degrees?
the question lacks enough information to make sense.


There's plenty of information. You said:

"Think about it. the error of the mag compass reading TIMES the error of the
helmsman gives the potential error UP TO THAT POINT. Already, you are
waaaaaaaaaay beyond 2*. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond."

How do you multiply the two errors? Is the total possible error more or less
than the sum?

Not one person
 

Subject: Not one person
From: (JAXAshby)


you are right. it is a silly question.

True, but I realized I was dealing with a jaxass who couldn't and wouldn't be
able to formulate an answer, so I tried to make it simple enough for you.
Obviously, alas, I failed and you only understood the "silly" part.

shen, think about it. ******How******* did the radio compass get aligned?
duh.

Ok, since you couldn't answer my question, ( which was designed to clarify your
use of the term "align", but got too complicated for you) maybe a simpler one
or g two, will stir a braincell or two ....could you please define how you
are using the term "align"? Aligned to what?
We are all aware that you use Jaxspeak, where the meanings of phrases tend to
get confused in your brain as the meds fluctuate, so try to wait for a stable
period and use simple sentences and words, so that we may get some coherence
when you write.
Relax now, it's a simple word, go use the dictionary if you need to, think
"align" .....deep breath......

WAIT, I did it again ! I posed a question! Jax couldn't answer a question if
his life depended on it ! Silly me!
Sorry Jax, but it's kinda hard to have a discussion if you are incapable of
explaining yourself.

Shen

Not one person
 

barf.

From: (Shen44)

``

Not one person
 

What's the matter, jaxie? Are you too cowardly to admit you made a dumb
comment? Its a simple question, jaxie, how to you multiply two compass errors?
You claimed it was easy. Then you claimed anyone would understand. So tell us,
what's 3 degrees times 5 degrees?


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies you dolt, the context was there in my statement but uttterly lacking
in
your question.

my statement, with its contextual information, was fully explained. you are
welcome to go back through the posts to that explanation if you are so
inclined. otherwise, we will just keep on considering you a blithering idiot.

So tell us all, jaxie, how much 3 degrees time 5 degrees?
the question lacks enough information to make sense.


There's plenty of information. You said:

"Think about it. the error of the mag compass reading TIMES the error of the
helmsman gives the potential error UP TO THAT POINT. Already, you are
waaaaaaaaaay beyond 2*. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond."

How do you multiply the two errors? Is the total possible error more or less
than the sum?

Not one person
 

yuk

Message-id:


[snip]

Not one person
 

Subject: Not one person
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 03/11/2004 15:37 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

barf.

From: (Shen44)

`

Awwww, I'm sawwee, jaxiepoo. Did I overload your simple brain circuitry? (EG
shame on me, that's a question)
Ya know, I bet if you asked a doctor, they could come up with a name for your
condition and prescribe some drugs to help..... even if they can only get you
through the "barfing" part.

Shen

Not one person
 

yuk

From: (Shen44)

[ ]

Not one person
 

So tell us all, jaxie, how much 3 degrees time 5 degrees?


JAXAshby wrote:
the question lacks enough information to make sense. you would know that
jeffies if you had taken even one of those courses you claim your degree is in.

Not at all, Jaxxie. If you had a tenth of the mathematical erudition you
like to pretend to, you could have said that different kinds of errors
sum or multiply differently, and referred to dot-products and
cross-products.

We all know what it means... don't you?

DSK

Not one person
 

yuk



[ ]

Not one person
 

Subject: Not one person
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 03/11/2004 17:07 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

yuk

From: (Shen44)

[ ]



Yup, sure sign of brain center melt down folks. He's down from 4 letter single
woids (barf), to three letter woids (yuk).
If we play our cards right, errrr, I mean if we're not careful, he'll totally
overload and do a mental shutdown .... course, after a few months of
hospitalization and the right meds, the doctors will be able to return him to
semi lucid status, where he'll be able to connect a number of semi related
woids which will serve to confuse but be readable, as his dissertation on the
RDF has shown.
As I stated earlier, Jax, there is help for this condition of yours .... it
involves brain mapping and being hooked to a computer to stimulate various
brain centers.
I do think you should forget trying to explain RDF. It's obvious you have no
comprehension of the areas of navigation which proceed use (or should I say DID
proceed) of such a tool, so that most of what you say is unrelated to or
unrelateable to the subject at hand.......just a suggestion.
BTW, Jax, please note, that considering your condition, I asked no questions in
the above, realizing your phobia in this area.


Shen

Not one person
 

There we have it. Jaxie tells everything he remembers from high school math.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
yuk

Message-id:


[snip]

Not one person
 

Nah, he was looking at the "barf" covering his keyboard and trying to
figure out what to do next.

Jeff Morris wrote:
There we have it. Jaxie tells everything he remembers from high school math.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...

yuk


Message-id:


[snip]

Not one person
 

JAXAshby wrote:

oh? errors don't multiply?

In this case that is correct.

Cheers
Marty

Not one person
 

marts, stay away from math. things like two lines normally define a plane and
planer space expands multiplicatively are beyond you.

oh? errors don't multiply?

In this case that is correct.

Cheers
Marty

Not one person
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
things like two lines normally define a plane and

No they don't. Two lines don't have to lie on the same plane. Gawd, you are
stupid, jaxie!


planer space expands multiplicatively are beyond you.

Are you talking about wood working class, now?

Not one person
 

JAXAshby wrote:

marts, stay away from math. things like two lines normally define a plane and
planer space expands multiplicatively are beyond you.


Huh, learn to proof read. Also see if you can find out the difference between mathematics, arithmetic,
trigonometry and geometry.

So if you have a compass with 40 degrees of error, (large but not unheard of), and you
"align" your RDF (which being assembled by you from a kit from Heathkit) has an error of
40 degrees, you could be of by 400 degrees? Astounding Jax, simply astounding.

Cheers
Marty
oh? errors don't multiply?


In this case that is correct.

Cheers
Marty

Not one person
 

jeffies, in the context of the discussion it most certainly is true.

geesh. I bet the clown has to use the dictionary to try to find out what
"context" means. no wonder he gets lost in advanced discussion about say
apples or pencils or watery things.

things like two lines normally define a plane and

No they don't. Two lines don't have to lie on the same plane. Gawd, you
are
stupid, jaxie!


planer space expands multiplicatively are beyond you.

Are you talking about wood working class, now?

Not one person
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...

things like two lines normally define a plane and


No they don't. Two lines don't have to lie on the same plane. Gawd, you are
stupid, jaxie!

You forgot to take into account the warp in Jax's mind!

Cheers
Marty

Not one person
 

boxless, stay away from math. it ain't your subject. yes, the numbers are
multiplied

(as I showed you how yesterday)

but NOT as you did it

(which is different from the way I showed you yesterday)

and gives you bogus results

(which I showed you how to avoid yesterday)

marts, stay away from math. things like two lines normally define a plane
and
planer space expands multiplicatively are beyond you.


Huh, learn to proof read. Also see if you can find out the difference between
mathematics, arithmetic,
trigonometry and geometry.

So if you have a compass with 40 degrees of error, (large but not unheard
of), and you
"align" your RDF (which being assembled by you from a kit from Heathkit) has
an error of
40 degrees, you could be of by 400 degrees? Astounding Jax, simply
astounding.

Cheers
Marty
oh? errors don't multiply?


In this case that is correct.

Cheers
Marty

Not one person
 

Another stupid blunder for jaxie. There is NO math context where saying "two
lines define a plane" is meaningful.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, in the context of the discussion it most certainly is true.

geesh. I bet the clown has to use the dictionary to try to find out what
"context" means. no wonder he gets lost in advanced discussion about say
apples or pencils or watery things.

things like two lines normally define a plane and

No they don't. Two lines don't have to lie on the same plane. Gawd, you
are
stupid, jaxie!


planer space expands multiplicatively are beyond you.

Are you talking about wood working class, now?

Not one person
 

in the context of a boat floating on the water in fog, dum-dum. a line is a
line, two lines make for an area, dum-dum

jeffies, you are beyond hope.

Another stupid blunder for jaxie. There is NO math context where saying "two
lines define a plane" is meaningful.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, in the context of the discussion it most certainly is true.

geesh. I bet the clown has to use the dictionary to try to find out what
"context" means. no wonder he gets lost in advanced discussion about say
apples or pencils or watery things.

things like two lines normally define a plane and

No they don't. Two lines don't have to lie on the same plane. Gawd, you
are
stupid, jaxie!


planer space expands multiplicatively are beyond you.

Are you talking about wood working class, now?

Not one person
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
in the context of a boat floating on the water in fog, dum-dum.

I though the context was "math" - you certainly tried to use mathematical words.

a line is a line,

That's a real stretch for you, jaxie.

two lines make for an area, dum-dum

What? Two lines define an area? Is there any limit to the depth of your
stupidity?


jeffies, you are beyond hope.

Another stupid blunder for jaxie. There is NO math context where saying "two
lines define a plane" is meaningful.

Not one person
 

JAXAshby wrote:

boxless, stay away from math. it ain't your subject. yes, the numbers are
multiplied

(as I showed you how yesterday)


Wrong again,(sigh.. yes again), the only thing you managed to show yesterday was
that you have absolutely no idea how to use RDF, you claimed you were going to tell
us how RDF worked, instead bumbling along trying to tell us how to USE it, and were
basically wrong in that endeavor. There was a strong hint of just how afraid of
the sea you are though, that at least was partially enlightening.

Cheers
Marty

Not one person
 

jeffies, the context was "math in the context of the discussion regarding RDF".

does your wife balance your checkbook for you?

in the context of a boat floating on the water in fog, dum-dum.

I though the context was "math" - you certainly tried to use mathematical
words.

a line is a line,

That's a real stretch for you, jaxie.

two lines make for an area, dum-dum

What? Two lines define an area? Is there any limit to the depth of your
stupidity?


jeffies, you are beyond hope.

Another stupid blunder for jaxie. There is NO math context where saying
"two
lines define a plane" is meaningful.