I never claimed I got that accuracy. I said I assumed my bearings were no
better than 5 degrees. I claimed goverment publications said two degrees.

From Bowditch, latest edition:
"In general, good radio bearings should not be in error by
more than two or three degrees for distances under 150
nautical miles."

Older versions of "Radio Navigation Aids - Pub. 117" and Bowditch had similar
comments. For instance, the 1943 edition of Bowditch:
"Barring unusual condition, the bearings ... may be considered accurate to 2
degrees"

Further, for using RDF for an approach, it doesn't matter is the accuracy is
somewhat worse, or if one bearing is not as good. When you're homeing in on an
offshore light, such as Matinicus the error is rather meaningless.

Jaxie keeps talking about how two RDF bearings are needed for a position.
However, it can be done with only one. Jaxie has failed to describe that
method, because he has never actually used RDF on a boat.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies and felton are too dumb to notice the rest of the ng now understands
the limits of accuracy of RDF are one hell of a lot more than "2 degrees".

I think felton does, too, but he is trying to make friends with joony.

jeffies, thought, is hopeless.

do jeffies, *you* made the statement that RDF -- as used by *you* in a fog off
the coast of Maine in a sailboat -- was accurate to 2*, or maybe 5*.

neither of which is even close to true. for all the reasons I laid out.

jeffies, *you* were talking about a sailboat, NOT a large ship at sea with
professional RDF equipment professionally installed professionally maintained
and professionally operated.

In addition, *you* failed to take appropriate account of the boat's movement.

In addition, *you* failed to understand that two bearings gives a total
potential error greater than the error of either

In addition, *you* failed to understand the Area of Potential Position is a
frickken AIR EE AH, not a point.

In addition, *you* failed to understand the difference between an area and a
point with jitter.

In addition, *you* failed to understand just what the chances are getting
within 2* with surperb equipment on solid land with zero atmospheric
disturbances (such as the fog you said you were in, or rain, or temp
variations, or sunspots, or time of year).

jeffies, you know nothing about the subject but a cookbook approach. you
generalized your cookbook recipe to a universal truth, and failed.

In addition, *you* failed even more so by not understanding just how far off
you were.

I never claimed I got that accuracy. I said I assumed my bearings were no
better than 5 degrees. I claimed goverment publications said two degrees.

From Bowditch, latest edition:
"In general, good radio bearings should not be in error by
more than two or three degrees for distances under 150
nautical miles."

Older versions of "Radio Navigation Aids - Pub. 117" and Bowditch had similar
comments. For instance, the 1943 edition of Bowditch:
"Barring unusual condition, the bearings ... may be considered accurate to 2
degrees"

Further, for using RDF for an approach, it doesn't matter is the accuracy is
somewhat worse, or if one bearing is not as good. When you're homeing in on
an
offshore light, such as Matinicus the error is rather meaningless.

Jaxie keeps talking about how two RDF bearings are needed for a position.
However, it can be done with only one. Jaxie has failed to describe that
method, because he has never actually used RDF on a boat.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies and felton are too dumb to notice the rest of the ng now
understands
the limits of accuracy of RDF are one hell of a lot more than "2 degrees".

I think felton does, too, but he is trying to make friends with joony.

jeffies, thought, is hopeless.

"JAXAshby" show that he is getting completely delusional:
do jeffies, *you* made the statement that RDF -- as used by *you* in a fog off
the coast of Maine in a sailboat -- was accurate to 2*, or maybe 5*.

You have a serious reading disability. Here's what I said:
"It was considered to be accurate to 2 degrees, but I generally assumed I'd get
no better the 5 degrees with my small unit. "

No better than 5 degrees, sometimes worse, but no better.


neither of which is even close to true. for all the reasons I laid out.

YOU explained why YOU would be unable to used RDF. Your explanation had little
to do with the way I used it.


jeffies, *you* were talking about a sailboat, NOT a large ship at sea with
professional RDF equipment professionally installed professionally maintained
and professionally operated.

So?


In addition, *you* failed to take appropriate account of the boat's movement.

The boat doesn't have to be moving for RDF to work. Yet another stupid thing
you've said about this.


In addition, *you* failed to understand that two bearings gives a total
potential error greater than the error of either

This is non-sensical. One bearing leaves you with a very large possible area.
Two bearings (presumably the second crossing the first) greatly reduces that
area. This is a very simple concept, jaxie. Any child would understand it.

Nor do you need to take two bearings to take advantage of RDF. In fact, it was
more typical to only use one RDF bearing, combined with some other techniques,
such as a sounding.

Nor do you need to take 2 bearings to get a position from RDF. There is a very
simple way to get a position from one RDF bearing, but you haven't figured it
out yet, have you jaxie?



In addition, *you* failed to understand the Area of Potential Position is a
frickken AIR EE AH, not a point.

You should see a doctor about that condition, jaxie.


In addition, *you* failed to understand the difference between an area and a
point with jitter.

you have the jitters now?


In addition, *you* failed to understand just what the chances are getting
within 2* with surperb equipment on solid land with zero atmospheric
disturbances (such as the fog you said you were in, or rain, or temp
variations, or sunspots, or time of year).

Yea, fog really slow down the radio waves.


jeffies, you know nothing about the subject but a cookbook approach. you
generalized your cookbook recipe to a universal truth, and failed.

WTF are you talking about? I never described how I used it at all.


In addition, *you* failed even more so by not understanding just how far off
you were.

In fact, I never actually said I used it at all for navigation, other than to
home in on a beacon. In fact, all I did was to say that I had RDF on board when
I cruised Maine. You completely embaressed yourself arguing with a claim I
never made! What a putz!

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.

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

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

Great. it is about time.

do jeffies, *you* made the statement that RDF -- as used by *you* in a fog
off
the coast of Maine in a sailboat -- was accurate to 2*, or maybe 5*.

You have a serious reading disability. Here's what I said:
"It was considered to be accurate to 2 degrees, but I generally assumed I'd
get
no better the 5 degrees with my small unit. "

No better than 5 degrees, sometimes worse, but no better.


neither of which is even close to true. for all the reasons I laid out.

YOU explained why YOU would be unable to used RDF. Your explanation had
little
to do with the way I used it.


jeffies, *you* were talking about a sailboat, NOT a large ship at sea with
professional RDF equipment professionally installed professionally
maintained
and professionally operated.

So?


In addition, *you* failed to take appropriate account of the boat's
movement.

The boat doesn't have to be moving for RDF to work. Yet another stupid thing
you've said about this.


In addition, *you* failed to understand that two bearings gives a total
potential error greater than the error of either

This is non-sensical. One bearing leaves you with a very large possible
area.
Two bearings (presumably the second crossing the first) greatly reduces that
area. This is a very simple concept, jaxie. Any child would understand it.

Nor do you need to take two bearings to take advantage of RDF. In fact, it
was
more typical to only use one RDF bearing, combined with some other
techniques,
such as a sounding.

Nor do you need to take 2 bearings to get a position from RDF. There is a
very
simple way to get a position from one RDF bearing, but you haven't figured it
out yet, have you jaxie?



In addition, *you* failed to understand the Area of Potential Position is a
frickken AIR EE AH, not a point.

You should see a doctor about that condition, jaxie.


In addition, *you* failed to understand the difference between an area and
a
point with jitter.

you have the jitters now?


In addition, *you* failed to understand just what the chances are getting
within 2* with surperb equipment on solid land with zero atmospheric
disturbances (such as the fog you said you were in, or rain, or temp
variations, or sunspots, or time of year).

Yea, fog really slow down the radio waves.


jeffies, you know nothing about the subject but a cookbook approach. you
generalized your cookbook recipe to a universal truth, and failed.

WTF are you talking about? I never described how I used it at all.


In addition, *you* failed even more so by not understanding just how far
off
you were.

In fact, I never actually said I used it at all for navigation, other than to
home in on a beacon. In fact, all I did was to say that I had RDF on board
when
I cruised Maine. You completely embaressed yourself arguing with a claim I
never made! What a putz!

"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?

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?

bject: uffda.
From: "Jeff Morris"

Jeff, trying to clarify anything for Jax, would be like Jax trying to "clarify"
his position in fog by taking bearings on a fog signal ... and praying he'd
learned enough about chart reading to identify the correct signal.

Shen

"JAXAshby" wrote

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.