| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
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! |
uffda.
Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby) .... And Jax makes another assumption based on scanty information and his own limited brain functioning. Shen 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.
Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby) Jaxass, you've all ready shown that in your case, you can't even find your way around Cape Hatteras with three GPS's, so, there's no way anyone would think you could use RDF or any other method, to find your way in a fog when surrounded by granite ledges using your lame, dockwalloper's method of taking bearings. Shen "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. |
uffda.
On 12 Mar 2004 20:03:10 GMT, (Shen44) wrote:
Subject: uffda. From: (JAXAshby) .... And Jax makes another assumption based on scanty information and his own limited brain functioning. Shen I am beginning to feel sorry for him. Jax obviously has deep seated fears where rocks are concerned. Perhaps the neighborhood kids used to throw rocks at young Jax. In any event, the idea of venturing out on the water where rocks might lurk, unmarked with lights to mark their presence, seems to have Jax paralyzed with fear. I suppose with someone with such a phobia, even miles may seem like a mere 60 yards. Indeed, even with triple GPS redundancy his fear of rocks cannot be overcome. I think we can just chalk this up to an area that requires some intensive psychotherapy. It seems that the prescribed piloting courses will not be sufficient. Let's pray that no one tells him about the pirates up that way... 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.
shen posts the following"
[snip of all but the important stuff] |
uffda.
shen posts the following:
[snip of all but the important stuff] |
uffda.
felton -- who has no wife to explain things for him -- posts the following:
[snip of all but the important stuff] |
uffda.
felton wrote:
I am beginning to feel sorry for him. Jax obviously has deep seated fears where rocks are concerned. Perhaps the neighborhood kids used to throw rocks at young Jax. What do you mean "used to"? The neighborhood kids still throw rocks at him. His mom encourages them. ... In any event, the idea of venturing out on the water where rocks might lurk, unmarked with lights to mark their presence, seems to have Jax paralyzed with fear. I suppose with someone with such a phobia, even miles may seem like a mere 60 yards. Indeed, even with triple GPS redundancy his fear of rocks cannot be overcome. Even places like Cape Hatteras, where there are no rocks, he assumes there must be. I wonder if he thinks the Gulf Stream also has rocks in it? Thunderstorms? His car? ... I think we can just chalk this up to an area that requires some intensive psychotherapy. It seems that the prescribed piloting courses will not be sufficient. Let's pray that no one tells him about the pirates up that way... Doesn't matter. Nobody can tell Jaxxie anything about anything. He is in his own world where sound waves and radio waves are deflected by at least 2 degrees. DSK |
uffda.
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 how things got even worse come the third week of the month when the mothers ran out of money and low on drugs and usually food. she believed in helping out those unfortunates, but noted that most had no real wish to rise above their predicament. I understand now. Not every welfare mother is on welfare and not every one is a mother. What is common, though, is the determination to never learn anything past some very early age of say thirteen. As common as broken fingernails. what a shame. felton wrote: I am beginning to feel sorry for him. Jax obviously has deep seated fears where rocks are concerned. Perhaps the neighborhood kids used to throw rocks at young Jax. What do you mean "used to"? The neighborhood kids still throw rocks at him. His mom encourages them. ... In any event, the idea of venturing out on the water where rocks might lurk, unmarked with lights to mark their presence, seems to have Jax paralyzed with fear. I suppose with someone with such a phobia, even miles may seem like a mere 60 yards. Indeed, even with triple GPS redundancy his fear of rocks cannot be overcome. Even places like Cape Hatteras, where there are no rocks, he assumes there must be. I wonder if he thinks the Gulf Stream also has rocks in it? Thunderstorms? His car? ... I think we can just chalk this up to an area that requires some intensive psychotherapy. It seems that the prescribed piloting courses will not be sufficient. Let's pray that no one tells him about the pirates up that way... Doesn't matter. Nobody can tell Jaxxie anything about anything. He is in his own world where sound waves and radio waves are deflected by at least 2 degrees. DSK |
uffda.
Not to worry, Jax only sails as crew, where he's limited to sitting in
the cockpit with his hands clasped together and told to sit still. Although I'd agree he has a definite phobia regarding rocks, it is only one. His greater phobia is having to answer questions (you'll note he's answered none posed). This, coupled with his phobia regarding intelligent discussion, tends to make anything he says, useless, at worst, and a nuisance at best, since others have to waste so much time correcting the errors in his reading comprehension, every time he post one of his poorly researched "Jaxisms"..... it generally has it's amusement value, however, which can be considered a positive aspect. otn felton wrote: On 12 Mar 2004 20:03:10 GMT, (Shen44) wrote .... And Jax makes another assumption based on scanty information and his own limited brain functioning. Shen I am beginning to feel sorry for him. Jax obviously has deep seated fears where rocks are concerned. Perhaps the neighborhood kids used to throw rocks at young Jax. In any event, the idea of venturing out on the water where rocks might lurk, unmarked with lights to mark their presence, seems to have Jax paralyzed with fear. I suppose with someone with such a phobia, even miles may seem like a mere 60 yards. Indeed, even with triple GPS redundancy his fear of rocks cannot be overcome. I think we can just chalk this up to an area that requires some intensive psychotherapy. It seems that the prescribed piloting courses will not be sufficient. Let's pray that no one tells him about the pirates up that way... It was never one of my favorite systems, otn snipped the useless Jax part |
uffda.
otnmbrd wrote:
Not to worry, Jax only sails as crew ... Hardly "crew." A more accurate description might be "self loading ballast." Rick |
uffda.
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 |
uffda.
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 |
uffda.
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] |
uffda.
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. |
uffda.
"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? |
uffda.
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] |
uffda.
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? |
uffda.
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? |
uffda.
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 |
uffda.
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 |
uffda.
Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby) Nah Jax, try to relax (we realized you were dying for an excuse to explain "uffda", but none of us cared). You need to try and hold your concentration long enough to read a full post for context (obviously a serious problem for you ... reminds me of an ad I just saw for AADD). OK, I'll try to keep it simple for ya.... my post was in response to your post which involved snipping and the reason you found it necessary to snip what I had said. Now ..... take a deep breath and try to stay focused. Shen 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] |
uffda.
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. |
uffda.
Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby) I can just imagine Jax trying to emulate her. Jax, "lets see 000 X 000, is.......ummmmm......errrrrr..... HEY MA ??!!!" Shen I suppose she couldn't have been too bright. Rick she could multiply 3-digit numbers in her head, |
uffda.
want to see 254 * 256 in my head?
okay ends in 24 next digits back = 650 answer is: 65024 literally, done in my head that fast. no smoke, no mirrors. I can just imagine Jax trying to emulate her. Jax, "lets see 000 X 000, is.......ummmmm......errrrrr..... HEY MA ??!!!" Shen I suppose she couldn't have been too bright. Rick she could multiply 3-digit numbers in her head, |
uffda.
answer is: 65024
literally, done in my head that fast. no smoke, no mirrors. however, there was a "trick", two actually. First, two numbers multipied together that differ by two will give a product that is 1 less than the square of the number between them. Second, a number squared that ends in 5 gives a product that ends in 25, and the other digits are equal to the remaining digit(s) times itself plus one. Got it? jeffies wife will explain it if you ask her. |
uffda.
Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby) Want to see 2546 * 2547 in my head? ok ends in 62 next digits back = 846 final digits back = 64 answer 6484662 literally done in my head that fast. no smoke no mirrors Shen want to see 254 * 256 in my head? okay ends in 24 next digits back = 650 answer is: 65024 literally, done in my head that fast. no smoke, no mirrors. |
uffda.
shen, LOL, you made yourself a fool, for *those* numbers can't be worked that
way. dumb try, shen. dumb. but I applaud your effort. Want to see 2546 * 2547 in my head? ok ends in 62 next digits back = 846 final digits back = 64 answer 6484662 literally done in my head that fast. no smoke no mirrors Shen want to see 254 * 256 in my head? okay ends in 24 next digits back = 650 answer is: 65024 literally, done in my head that fast. no smoke, no mirrors. |
uffda.
Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby) Date: 03/12/2004 16:52 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: shen, LOL, you made yourself a fool, for *those* numbers can't be worked that way. OH? prove it... my mind works in ways you will never understand, and since we were talking mental calculations, who are you to tell me I can't work things in a particular way in my own mind. (statement, not a question). All you can question is the accuracy of my statement, and after the fact, I checked my calculations on a calculator and found them correct. If you wish, waste some time and prove me wrong...... nah, don't do that .... even YOU won't understand what you're saying. Shen |
uffda.
Subject: uffda. From: (JAXAshby) Date: 03/12/2004 16:41 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: answer is: 65024 literally, done in my head that fast. no smoke, no mirrors. however, there was a "trick", two actually. ewwww , tricky...you needed to use tricks. I, on the other hand prefer a visual memory method. Shen |
uffda.
bull. there is no intuitive way to calculate the product of those numbers in
that way, any more than you can calc a 4th root of a number algabraicly with a pencil and paper. There ARE ways to calc that product in one's head, but not in the fashion you claimed. None. sorry, dude. wanna see me do square roots using an adding machine? $100 and I will show you. shen, LOL, you made yourself a fool, for *those* numbers can't be worked that way. OH? prove it... my mind works in ways you will never understand, and since we were talking mental calculations, who are you to tell me I can't work things in a particular way in my own mind. (statement, not a question). All you can question is the accuracy of my statement, and after the fact, I checked my calculations on a calculator and found them correct. If you wish, waste some time and prove me wrong...... nah, don't do that .... even YOU won't understand what you're saying. Shen |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:48 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com