I love the way Jax makes statements, based on his typically flawed
comprehension of what was/is written and/or going on in a thread.
Please do not count me in the group that thinks that "the limits of
accuracy of RDF are one hell of a lot more than "2 degrees"."
The fact that I have used this system in the past on both ships and
small boats (unlike Jax) and know how to take bearings (unlike Jax) may
account for my opinion.
It was never one of my favorite systems, but when running the US
coastline, back in the days of Loran A, it was frequently put to good use.

otn

felton wrote:
On 12 Mar 2004 14:46:32 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:


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.


I believe I may have discovered the reason for your hesitance to
accept RDF as a navigator's tool. When referring to my course book,
Advanced Coastal Navigation, USCGAUX, it states the following:

"The radio direction-finder (RDF) has some characteristics in common
with other important navigational instruments: the readings are
subject to certain errors; these errors may be reduced by skillful and
intelligent operation; the dangers of using erroneous readings may be
greatly reduced by the intelligence and good judgement of the
navigator."

Ok, looks like you are batting a big goose egg there...

The material goes on to say...

"However, if a sharp minimum, or null, can be obtained, the operator
can determine the bearing to within, perhaps, two or three degrees in
azimuth."

Now could you manage that? It seems unlikely, given those caveats
involving skillful, intelligent and good judgement. As far as Jeff's
level of precision, it would seem that as he is alive and well, he was
able to obtain the required level of precision for his purposes, which
is what matters.