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.

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.

You really should sign up for that Power Squadron course. If money is
an issue, we can take up a collection. I never knew how lucky I was
to never have perished among the granite ledges of Maine. In
hindsight, I guess the charts helped. Maine is a beautiful place to
sail, but it does require certain skillsets. In your case, your fears
may not be all that irrational.

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.

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.

"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!

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.

"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.

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.

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!