|
uffda.
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. |
uffda.
|
uffda.
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. |
uffda.
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. |
uffda.
|
uffda.
"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! |
uffda.
"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." all brought to us by felton and the USCG Auxillary manual, written by one of the same people who tell one and all that a compass and a knotmeter will get you safely through the granite ledges in fog, if only you take one of their courses first. felton, you are as dumb as jeffies. nah, can't be that dumb. but dumb, nevertheless. 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. |
uffda.
It was never one of my favorite systems,
otn yup, therefore accurate to 2 degrees, obviously, when threading the granite ledges in a Maine fog. |
uffda.
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! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com