LOL I'm not too sure about the self loading part.

otn

Rick wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:

Not to worry, Jax only sails as crew ...


Hardly "crew." A more accurate description might be "self loading ballast."

Rick

JAXAshby wrote:

my mother was a social worker and complained sometimes about how difficult it
could trying to talk with welfare mothers, none too bright under the best of
times she would sometimes mention ...

I am surprised you knew your mother. Your social skills lead one to
believe that you were raised by invertebrates.

I suppose she couldn't have been too bright, she kept you to full term.

Rick

ect: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby)

Interpretation:
Jax couldn't understand it.
Jax couldn't formulate an intelligent answer.

Look at the bright side, Jax .... now that we're all just "discussing" your
mental deficiencies, you don't have to worry so much about trying to post
anymore "Jaxisms" on navigation in general and RDF in particular, and making an
even greater fool of yourself.

Shen

shen posts the following:

[snip of all but the important stuff]

I suppose she couldn't have been too bright.

Rick

she could multiply 3-digit numbers in her head, and not take more than a second
or two. I saw her do, many times, such as calculate the price per pound of
5-3/4 ounces at $0.37 as compared to 8-3/8 ounces at $0.51 compared to 1 pound
2-1/2 ounces at $1.17 and pick up two of the 8-3/8 ounce size.

btw, she worked as a code breaker in WW2.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, get your wife to read to you what you wrote, and have her explain it
to you.

your statement does clearly show its intention that 2* not likely, but 5*
do-able.

Yup. That's right.


jeffies, if you meant -- as you say now -- there was no way in hell of getting
even 5* just why did you not state that 10* or 15* or more had some real
degree of probabity?

There's clearly no limit to how badly YOU might screw it up.

Instead, you use words to indicate 2* maybe, and you
defended your statement again and again and again.

I try to clarify your misconception several times. Don't blame me for your
learning disability.


So, NOW we have *you* statement that 5* accuracy is only remotely likely and
then under the very best of conditions.

No. I think 5 degrees is quite achievable. However, I used RDF in a way that
it wouldn't matter if it were a bit worse. I practice, there's no way of
knowing if one bearing is off 6 or 7 degrees.


Great. it is about time.

I stand by everything I said Jaxie. You, on the other hand, completely
embaressed yourself by a tour de force of stupidity. Let me point out one of
your fundamental blunders:

You made a big deal of claiming that the RDF must be "aligned" using the ships
compass, so the RDF is no more accurate than the compass. However, the
alignment can be done while the vessel is anchored. In fact, since the RDF
doubled as the "entertainment" radio, we checked the alignment almost every time
we anchored - more often than it was used for serious navigation.

Further, you claimed that it depends on the helmsman's ability to hold a course,
and thus those two errors must be added to the error inhererent in the RDF
itself. (We'll ignore your stupid "errors multiply" blunder.) However, if
you're coming in from offshore and homing on a lighthouse radiobeacon the
compass error doesn't really come into play. Imagine leaving Cape Ann one
morning, sailing north for a day and a night, and approaching Matinicus the next
morning in fog. flat seas and a light SW wind. Its easy to hold a good course,
and the RDF indicates Matinicus lies 15 degrees on the Starboard bow. This
relative bearing has no dependency on the compass at all, and there is no reason
to think it would be off by more than a few degrees. Soundings are over 300
feet, so you're still some miles away.

Now given this rather typical scenario, would you:
A. turn to starboard about 12 degrees to keep the radiobeacon slightly on the
stbd bow, or,
B. declare that RDF is not reliable enough and turn back to Boston.

Jaxie would probably turn back, for those who forged on, you start hearing the
Matinicus fog horn on the bow. What can you do to determine your distance off?

So jaxie, what's you answer to these simple questions, and what makes you think
the RDF error would be absurdly high? Was the boat's motion a problem? Were "2
bearings" needed? What problem is caused by compass error?

nah, shen, uffda is a Midwest term meaning (in this context) "How dumb can
these clowns really be?".

ect: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby)

Interpretation:
Jax couldn't understand it.
Jax couldn't formulate an intelligent answer.

Shen

shen posts the following:

[snip of all but the important stuff]

jeffies, let your wife read what you wrote -- complete sentences, that's nice
-- before you post.

Or better yet, why don't you put on the ng and I'll explain RDF to her and then
she can explain it to you over the next few months.

jeffies, get your wife to read to you what you wrote, and have her explain
it
to you.

your statement does clearly show its intention that 2* not likely, but 5*
do-able.

Yup. That's right.


jeffies, if you meant -- as you say now -- there was no way in hell of
getting
even 5* just why did you not state that 10* or 15* or more had some real
degree of probabity?

There's clearly no limit to how badly YOU might screw it up.

Instead, you use words to indicate 2* maybe, and you
defended your statement again and again and again.

I try to clarify your misconception several times. Don't blame me for your
learning disability.


So, NOW we have *you* statement that 5* accuracy is only remotely likely
and
then under the very best of conditions.

No. I think 5 degrees is quite achievable. However, I used RDF in a way
that
it wouldn't matter if it were a bit worse. I practice, there's no way of
knowing if one bearing is off 6 or 7 degrees.


Great. it is about time.

I stand by everything I said Jaxie. You, on the other hand, completely
embaressed yourself by a tour de force of stupidity. Let me point out one of
your fundamental blunders:

You made a big deal of claiming that the RDF must be "aligned" using the
ships
compass, so the RDF is no more accurate than the compass. However, the
alignment can be done while the vessel is anchored. In fact, since the RDF
doubled as the "entertainment" radio, we checked the alignment almost every
time
we anchored - more often than it was used for serious navigation.

Further, you claimed that it depends on the helmsman's ability to hold a
course,
and thus those two errors must be added to the error inhererent in the RDF
itself. (We'll ignore your stupid "errors multiply" blunder.) However, if
you're coming in from offshore and homing on a lighthouse radiobeacon the
compass error doesn't really come into play. Imagine leaving Cape Ann one
morning, sailing north for a day and a night, and approaching Matinicus the
next
morning in fog. flat seas and a light SW wind. Its easy to hold a good
course,
and the RDF indicates Matinicus lies 15 degrees on the Starboard bow. This
relative bearing has no dependency on the compass at all, and there is no
reason
to think it would be off by more than a few degrees. Soundings are over 300
feet, so you're still some miles away.

Now given this rather typical scenario, would you:
A. turn to starboard about 12 degrees to keep the radiobeacon slightly on
the
stbd bow, or,
B. declare that RDF is not reliable enough and turn back to Boston.

Jaxie would probably turn back, for those who forged on, you start hearing
the
Matinicus fog horn on the bow. What can you do to determine your distance
off?

So jaxie, what's you answer to these simple questions, and what makes you
think
the RDF error would be absurdly high? Was the boat's motion a problem? Were
"2
bearings" needed? What problem is caused by compass error?

Yes, jaxie, we understand. A real life example of how to use RDF properly was
just too complicated for you. In fact, a real life example of being on a
sailboat was just too scary for you.

So, TurnBack, have you figured out how to determine the distance off from the
lighthouse yet? Its not too hard; I could teach it to a child.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, let your wife read what you wrote -- complete sentences, that's nice
-- before you post.

Or better yet, why don't you put on the ng and I'll explain RDF to her and
then
she can explain it to you over the next few months.

jeffies, get your wife to read to you what you wrote, and have her explain
it
to you.

your statement does clearly show its intention that 2* not likely, but 5*
do-able.

Yup. That's right.


jeffies, if you meant -- as you say now -- there was no way in hell of
getting
even 5* just why did you not state that 10* or 15* or more had some real
degree of probabity?

There's clearly no limit to how badly YOU might screw it up.

Instead, you use words to indicate 2* maybe, and you
defended your statement again and again and again.

I try to clarify your misconception several times. Don't blame me for your
learning disability.


So, NOW we have *you* statement that 5* accuracy is only remotely likely
and
then under the very best of conditions.

No. I think 5 degrees is quite achievable. However, I used RDF in a way
that
it wouldn't matter if it were a bit worse. I practice, there's no way of
knowing if one bearing is off 6 or 7 degrees.


Great. it is about time.

I stand by everything I said Jaxie. You, on the other hand, completely
embaressed yourself by a tour de force of stupidity. Let me point out one of
your fundamental blunders:

You made a big deal of claiming that the RDF must be "aligned" using the
ships
compass, so the RDF is no more accurate than the compass. However, the
alignment can be done while the vessel is anchored. In fact, since the RDF
doubled as the "entertainment" radio, we checked the alignment almost every
time
we anchored - more often than it was used for serious navigation.

Further, you claimed that it depends on the helmsman's ability to hold a
course,
and thus those two errors must be added to the error inhererent in the RDF
itself. (We'll ignore your stupid "errors multiply" blunder.) However, if
you're coming in from offshore and homing on a lighthouse radiobeacon the
compass error doesn't really come into play. Imagine leaving Cape Ann one
morning, sailing north for a day and a night, and approaching Matinicus the
next
morning in fog. flat seas and a light SW wind. Its easy to hold a good
course,
and the RDF indicates Matinicus lies 15 degrees on the Starboard bow. This
relative bearing has no dependency on the compass at all, and there is no
reason
to think it would be off by more than a few degrees. Soundings are over 300
feet, so you're still some miles away.

Now given this rather typical scenario, would you:
A. turn to starboard about 12 degrees to keep the radiobeacon slightly on
the
stbd bow, or,
B. declare that RDF is not reliable enough and turn back to Boston.

Jaxie would probably turn back, for those who forged on, you start hearing
the
Matinicus fog horn on the bow. What can you do to determine your distance
off?

So jaxie, what's you answer to these simple questions, and what makes you
think
the RDF error would be absurdly high? Was the boat's motion a problem? Were
"2
bearings" needed? What problem is caused by compass error?

JAXAshby wrote:

nah, shen, uffda is a Midwest term meaning (in this context) "How dumb can
these clowns really be?".

Dip**** ... at least try to spell it correctly. Uff Da is Norwegian for
"Oh crap, Jax is back."

Or what a Norwegian shrink might say about your mental condition.

Or what your mother said when the nurse handed you to her.

Or what the doctor said when he dropped you on your newborn head.

I am sure others here will add many other translations ...

Rick

the term "in this context" seems to have slipped by ya, ricky.

nah, shen, uffda is a Midwest term meaning (in this context) "How dumb can
these clowns really be?".

Dip**** ... at least try to spell it correctly. Uff Da is Norwegian for
"Oh crap, Jax is back."

Or what a Norwegian shrink might say about your mental condition.

Or what your mother said when the nurse handed you to her.

Or what the doctor said when he dropped you on your newborn head.

I am sure others here will add many other translations ...

Rick