|
DR practice
If you want to sail a course of 080, at a speed of 10 knots and you
sail thru a current having an estimated set of 140 and a drift of two knots for 1 asa pt. What would be your course and speed made good?. If you want to sail a course of 095 through a current having a set of 170 and a drift of 2.5 knots, using a speed of 12 knots for 1 asa point What course would you steer and what would be your speed made good? You want to sail a course of 265 and a speed of 15 knots through a current having a set of 185 and a drift of 3 knots For 1 more asa point What course would you steer and what is your speed made good? Joe |
DR practice
joe, to even ask those questions shows one and all that you have never been on
the water but just outside the breakwater for half an hour or so. From: (Joe) Date: 7/15/2004 11:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: If you want to sail a course of 080, at a speed of 10 knots and you sail thru a current having an estimated set of 140 and a drift of two knots for 1 asa pt. What would be your course and speed made good?. If you want to sail a course of 095 through a current having a set of 170 and a drift of 2.5 knots, using a speed of 12 knots for 1 asa point What course would you steer and what would be your speed made good? You want to sail a course of 265 and a speed of 15 knots through a current having a set of 185 and a drift of 3 knots For 1 more asa point What course would you steer and what is your speed made good? Joe |
DR practice
Joe wrote:
I suspect that the speed you're looking for is the speed that would be sailed through the water to acheive the desired course - speed made good is the speed over the ground, isn't it (ie resultant of course/speed sailed and drift/set)? I'll assume you're looking for course/speed through the water to acheive the desired course and speed in the given conditions... If you want to sail a course of 080, at a speed of 10 knots and you sail thru a current having an estimated set of 140 and a drift of two knots 069 at 9.17 knots. If you want to sail a course of 095 through a current having a set of 170 and a drift of 2.5 knots, using a speed of 12 knots 083 at 11.61 knots. You want to sail a course of 265 and a speed of 15 knots through a current having a set of 185 and a drift of 3 knots 277 at 14.78 knots. -- Wally www.artbywally.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
DR practice
"Wally" wrote in message ...
Joe wrote: I suspect that the speed you're looking for is the speed that would be sailed through the water to acheive the desired course - speed made good is the speed over the ground, isn't it Yes, Im talking about doing a DR plot SMG & CMG are the actual course and speed you do. (ie resultant of course/speed sailed and drift/set)? I'll assume you're looking for course/speed through the water to acheive the desired course and speed in the given conditions... If you want to sail a course of 080, at a speed of 10 knots and you sail thru a current having an estimated set of 140 and a drift of two knots 069 at 9.17 knots. Sorry Wally you are incorrect. If you want to sail a course of 095 through a current having a set of 170 and a drift of 2.5 knots, using a speed of 12 knots 083 at 11.61 knots. Very close to the course to steer, and your speed is off by almost a knot You want to sail a course of 265 and a speed of 15 knots through a current having a set of 185 and a drift of 3 knots 277 at 14.78 knots. 277 is way off, but your real close on the speed, but not right on. Sorry you flunked Next! Come on Jax... show us what a skilled offshore navigator you are! Our you just a big mouth blowhard! It's just a simple DR plot... Mr offshore bigshot! |
DR practice
Joe wrote:
If you want to sail a course of 080, at a speed of 10 knots and you sail thru a current having an estimated set of 140 and a drift of two knots What would be your course and speed made good?. What do you mean by I "*want* to sail a course of 080, at a speed of 10 knots"? In this question, you ask for course and speed made good - so I have to assume that, by "want", you mean 'the course I'm steering and my speed through the water'. If that's the case, then the answer is 089 at 11.14 knots. If you want to sail a course of 095 through a current having a set of 170 and a drift of 2.5 knots, using a speed of 12 knots What course would you steer and what would be your speed made good? Again, you use the term "want", but you ask for something different in the answer - the course to steer and the speed made good. Clearly, the "course and speed I *want*" doesn't have a consistent meaning. I may be a sweet, innocent, fresh-faced n00b, but I'm not even sure that this question makes sense. You give a course of 095 and a speed of 12 knots, but ask for course to steer and speed made good. Therefore, 095 must be the course made good, but 12 knots must be the speed through the water. I'll come back to this shortly and see if I can work out an answer without having to do a degree in maths. You want to sail a course of 265 and a speed of 15 knots through a current having a set of 185 and a drift of 3 knots For 1 more asa point What course would you steer and what is your speed made good? As above - you ask for course to steer and speed made good. (Whips out copy of Coastal Navigation and fires up AutoCAD...) -- Wally www.artbywally.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
DR practice
Does he know what DR stands for?
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ... yeah, that's it. yesterday means tomorrow, green means frying pan and DR means whatever you want, today at 7:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time when posting as what the frick ever. Date: 7/17/2004 7:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: et JAXAshby wrote: ah, yes. now we have over the knee baldly stating that "the facts of navigation" don't follow the laws of physics. over the knee does not give any reason for this, but just flatly states it is true. the very same arguement made by true believers as to why astrology works. yeah. well over the knee hasn't crashed yet, so it must be true, right? ROFLMAO Ahhhh jaxass, you're always good for a laugh!! You can't argue any point as to what "DR" is or might be, so you go off running in circles yelling "physics, physics". You know nothing about applying set and drift or how it may be determined, so you claim "astrology,astrology". You might be qualified to navigate in LI sound in daylight with unlimited visibility within a mile of the beach, but never offshore, as you've proven you can't even safely round Hatteras with a couple of GPS's. BTW Yer right, I haven't crashed yet and I've been doin it fer about 45 years .....course, even idiots like you can do it nowadays .... as long as you have enough spare gps receivers and batteries and don't lose the signal for some reason..... then again, mebbe not. Ahhhh well, enough jaxnonsense for this weekend. otn |
DR practice
|
DR practice
"Wally" wrote in message ...
Joe wrote: If you want to sail a course of 080, at a speed of 10 knots and you sail thru a current having an estimated set of 140 and a drift of two knots What would be your course and speed made good?. What do you mean by I "*want* to sail a course of 080, at a speed of 10 knots"? In this question, you ask for course and speed made good - so I have to assume that, by "want", you mean 'the course I'm steering and my speed through the water'. If that's the case, then the answer is 089 at 11.14 knots. Ah I see what your saying, sorry. Let me rephrase the question Your sailing a course of 080 at a speed of 10 knots and you sail thru a current having an estimated set of 140 and a drift of two knots What would be your course and speed made good?. If you want to sail a course of 095 through a current having a set of 170 and a drift of 2.5 knots, using a speed of 12 knots What course would you steer and what would be your speed made good? Again, you use the term "want", but you ask for something different in the answer - the course to steer and the speed made good. Clearly, the "course and speed I *want*" doesn't have a consistent meaning. I may be a sweet, innocent, fresh-faced n00b, but I'm not even sure that this question makes sense. You give a course of 095 and a speed of 12 knots, but ask for course to steer and speed made good. Therefore, 095 must be the course made good, but 12 knots must be the speed through the water. I'll come back to this shortly and see if I can work out an answer without having to do a degree in maths. You want to sail a course of 265 and a speed of 15 knots through a current having a set of 185 and a drift of 3 knots For 1 more asa point What course would you steer and what is your speed made good? As above - you ask for course to steer and speed made good. (Whips out copy of Coastal Navigation and fires up AutoCAD...) |
DR practice
No, not you. I just wondered if he knew what the letters stood for? I
missed the initial part of this and for whatever reason the provider won't give them up when I sign on. M. "otnmbrd" wrote in message nk.net... Michael wrote: Does he know what DR stands for? Jax knows a basic definition of "DR" ..... or were you asking about me? otn |
DR practice
JAXAshby wrote: joe, you don't understand the definition of the term "DR". jax, you don't know the definition of "DR", you only know A definition of "DR", and the fact that *you* don't understand this is not surprising. otn |
DR practice
over the knee, if you expand the definition to include gps charterplotters,
anything is possible. same same if you expand the definition of breakfast eggs to include three bricks of 24-k gold, you would be rich. DR is speed vs time vs direction pointed, and your best guess as to where that puts you. that's it, nothing more. Some people believe that guessing as to current direction and strength and guessing as to boat drift due to wind speed and direction improves their best guess as to where they are, but it doesn't. joe, you don't understand the definition of the term "DR". jax, you don't know the definition of "DR", you only know A definition of "DR", and the fact that *you* don't understand this is not surprising. otn |
DR practice
JAXAshby wrote: over the knee, if you expand the definition to include gps charterplotters, anything is possible. If I use a gps chart plotter (assuming gps working and connected) then I have a fix not a "DR" position same same if you expand the definition of breakfast eggs to include three bricks of 24-k gold, you would be rich. DR is speed vs time vs direction pointed, and your best guess as to where that puts you. that's it, nothing more. As stated before, you know "A" definition of DR, nothing more. All this and your last post tell me is that you have extremely limited experience and knowledge of the subject. Some people believe that guessing as to current direction and strength and guessing as to boat drift due to wind speed and direction improves their best guess as to where they are, but it doesn't. Statement shows limited experience. DR has been used for centuries and is still used today. As such, it's used to travel new routes as well as those that have been frequently done in the past. For this reason, many sailors have expanded on the term "DR" to include past experience; their knowledge of how their vessel reacts to winds, known currents; soundings, etc. .... i.e. they use these factors to improve/fine tune their "DR" plots. As Bowditch states, your definition is correct, but it's not universal. For you, "DR" is speed/time/direction and that's OK since it's probably all your experience can handle, but for many others, it includes a number of other factors beyond your capabilities which don't give a position and can be in error, but from experience, helps improve what *THEY* call "DR". otn joe, you don't understand the definition of the term "DR". jax, you don't know the definition of "DR", you only know A definition of "DR", and the fact that *you* don't understand this is not surprising. otn |
DR practice
no, over the knee, you DO have DR **if** you expand the definition of DR as you
did prior. I didn't expand it, you did. over the knee, if you expand the definition to include gps charterplotters, anything is possible. If I use a gps chart plotter (assuming gps working and connected) then I have a fix not a "DR" position |
DR practice
over the knee, give it up for the kriste sakes. once ah-fricken-ghen you are
arguing a physical impossibilty. most every scientist -- and certainly every last physicist -- on the planet is laughing at you. You, over the knee, have a better chance of arguing astrology is valid. DR has been used for centuries and is still used today. As such, it's used to travel new routes as well as those that have been frequently done in the past. For this reason, many sailors have expanded on the term "DR" to include past experience; their knowledge of how their vessel reacts to winds, known currents; soundings, etc. .... i.e. they use these factors to improve/fine tune their "DR" plots. As Bowditch states, your definition is correct, but it's not universal. For you, "DR" is speed/time/direction and that's OK since it's probably all your experience can handle, but for many others, it includes a number of other factors beyond your capabilities which don't give a position and can be in error, but from experience, helps improve what *THEY* call "DR". otn joe, you don't understand the definition of the term "DR". jax, you don't know the definition of "DR", you only know A definition of "DR", and the fact that *you* don't understand this is not surprising. otn |
DR practice
Statement shows limited experience.
over the knee, that is the very same arguement put forth by true believers as to why they believe astrology is valid. over the knee, you know more about astrology than physics. do you believe in astrology?? |
DR practice
JAXAshby wrote: no, over the knee, you DO have DR **if** you expand the definition of DR as you did prior. I didn't expand it, you did. over the knee, if you expand the definition to include gps charterplotters, anything is possible. If I use a gps chart plotter (assuming gps working and connected) then I have a fix not a "DR" position ROFL Go back and read my previous post. "I" did not expand the definition of "DR" up to this point, if anything, you did. My simple statement was that your's was only one definition of "DR", not the absolute. BTW, there are adult education courses you could take which might help your reading comprehension. otn |
DR practice
JAXAshby wrote: over the knee, give it up for the kriste sakes. once ah-fricken-ghen you are arguing a physical impossibilty. most every scientist -- and certainly every last physicist -- on the planet is laughing at you. You, over the knee, have a better chance of arguing astrology is valid. Try to pay attention, difficult as that may be. The subject is navigation ..... because someone is a scientist, physicist, or astrologist, it doesn't necessarily hold that they are a "navigator". If you had any experience, you would know that navigation, especially in the past, was as much an "art form" as it was a "science". Especially, back then, your "basic" definition of "DR" was used and held, *AS* the basic definition, but again as stated, it was not the only definition, then as now. The only problem I really see here, is that you have at best a highly limited knowledge base of navigation, coupled with extremely little experience, so, that, coupled with your consistently poor showing in reading comprehension and lack of ability to grasp or expand on a concept other than the one you may have been initially taught, you can't possibly grasp how these other factors could possibly be applied to the definition of "DR" ..... hey, no problem .... just stick with the basics you know .... it's not like you're going to be senior navigator on some offshore boat, at any time. otn |
DR practice
JAXAshby wrote: Statement shows limited experience. over the knee, that is the very same arguement put forth by true believers as to why they believe astrology is valid. over the knee, you know more about astrology than physics. do you believe in astrology?? ROFLMAO I'm still trying to figure out how you found the need to work "Astrology" in to a discussion on DR .... it's a given you'll start screaming "PHYSICS" when you don't have a clue as to what's being said, in a vain attempt to sound intelligent when you try to give an answer. BTW I should have said Astrologer, not astrologist. Also, BTW .... which is it, you just like seeing your name show up with as many separate replies to a single message as possible? Or are your thought processes so fracture that you have to take a "brain freeze" break between your pearls of knowledge, so you send a bunch of separate junk rather than just one junk - post? otn |
DR practice
Joe wrote:
Ah I see what your saying, sorry. Let me rephrase the question What about the other two questions - the ones where you ask for the course *to steer* and the speed *made good*? Do you mean the course and speed made good? -- Wally www.artbywally.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
DR practice
note your expansion statement below.
no, over the knee, you DO have DR **if** you expand the definition of DR as you did prior. I didn't expand it, you did. over the knee, if you expand the definition to include gps charterplotters, anything is possible. If I use a gps chart plotter (assuming gps working and connected) then I have a fix not a "DR" position ROFL Go back and read my previous post. "I" did not expand the definition of "DR" up to this point, if anything, you did. ---------------- My simple statement was that your's was only one definition of "DR", not the absolute. ----------------------- BTW, there are adult education courses you could take which might help your reading comprehension. otn |
DR practice
there you have it, folks. over the knee "the astrology proof" as to why the
scientists of the world are wrong. In other words, over the knee is telling us the **he** knows (because **he** hasn't yet hit the rocks) that the laws of physics are wrong, wrong, wrong. good on ya, dum-dum, for being lucky. so far. over the knee, give it up for the kriste sakes. once ah-fricken-ghen you are arguing a physical impossibilty. most every scientist -- and certainly every last physicist -- on the planet is laughing at you. You, over the knee, have a better chance of arguing astrology is valid. Try to pay attention, difficult as that may be. The subject is navigation ..... because someone is a scientist, physicist, or astrologist, it doesn't necessarily hold that they are a "navigator". If you had any experience, you would know that navigation, especially in the past, was as much an "art form" as it was a "science". Especially, back then, your "basic" definition of "DR" was used and held, *AS* the basic definition, but again as stated, it was not the only definition, then as now. The only problem I really see here, is that you have at best a highly limited knowledge base of navigation, coupled with extremely little experience, so, that, coupled with your consistently poor showing in reading comprehension and lack of ability to grasp or expand on a concept other than the one you may have been initially taught, you can't possibly grasp how these other factors could possibly be applied to the definition of "DR" ..... hey, no problem .... just stick with the basics you know .... it's not like you're going to be senior navigator on some offshore boat, at any time. otn |
DR practice
don't let the facts of science confuse you, over the knee. nevermind that
every last physicist on the planet is laughing at you. |
DR practice
There you go with that reading comprehension problem again.
Oh well, got better things to do than argue semantics with you. otn JAXAshby wrote: note your expansion statement below. no, over the knee, you DO have DR **if** you expand the definition of DR as you did prior. I didn't expand it, you did. over the knee, if you expand the definition to include gps charterplotters, anything is possible. If I use a gps chart plotter (assuming gps working and connected) then I have a fix not a "DR" position ROFL Go back and read my previous post. "I" did not expand the definition of "DR" up to this point, if anything, you did. ---------------- My simple statement was that your's was only one definition of "DR", not the absolute. ----------------------- BTW, there are adult education courses you could take which might help your reading comprehension. otn |
DR practice
JAXAshby wrote: there you have it, folks. over the knee "the astrology proof" as to why the scientists of the world are wrong. In other words, over the knee is telling us the **he** knows (because **he** hasn't yet hit the rocks) that the laws of physics are wrong, wrong, wrong. good on ya, dum-dum, for being lucky. so far. ROFLMAO There you have it folks! Ole jaxass hasn't enough knowledge and experience with navigation, to argue one point I made, so he falls back on his usual "scientist of the world", "physics", "astrology" ploy in yet *ANOTHER* vain attempt to cover the fact. jax, it's becoming obvious that even the simple process of "DR" is way beyond your abilities. otn |
DR practice
JAXAshby wrote: don't let the facts of science confuse you, over the knee. nevermind that every last physicist on the planet is laughing at you. Don't let the facts of navigation confuse you, jaxass. Never mind that every last navigator on the planet is laughing at you. ROFLMAO otn |
DR practice
not reading comp, over the knee, that is your problem, but rather that you
don't care what reality is. you are vain, and if the world does not match your prior beliefs, it is the world that is wrong. ain't nothing sematic about the laws of physics. not a thing. There you go with that reading comprehension problem again. Oh well, got better things to do than argue semantics with you. otn JAXAshby wrote: note your expansion statement below. no, over the knee, you DO have DR **if** you expand the definition of DR as you did prior. I didn't expand it, you did. over the knee, if you expand the definition to include gps charterplotters, anything is possible. If I use a gps chart plotter (assuming gps working and connected) then I have a fix not a "DR" position ROFL Go back and read my previous post. "I" did not expand the definition of "DR" up to this point, if anything, you did. ---------------- My simple statement was that your's was only one definition of "DR", not the absolute. ----------------------- BTW, there are adult education courses you could take which might help your reading comprehension. otn |
DR practice
over the knee, the laws of physics were not voted on by corrupt politicians and
they are not suspendable by you just because you didn't prior understand them. You do understand them now, right? You do understand that DR is just a guess and not a very good one at that, don't you? I do hope you don't try to cling to your prior belief that just because you don't understand something that it therefore can not be right. only really stew ped people think that and you are not stew ped, are you over the knee? there you have it, folks. over the knee "the astrology proof" as to why the scientists of the world are wrong. In other words, over the knee is telling us the **he** knows (because **he** hasn't yet hit the rocks) that the laws of physics are wrong, wrong, wrong. good on ya, dum-dum, for being lucky. so far. ROFLMAO There you have it folks! Ole jaxass hasn't enough knowledge and experience with navigation, to argue one point I made, so he falls back on his usual "scientist of the world", "physics", "astrology" ploy in yet *ANOTHER* vain attempt to cover the fact. jax, it's becoming obvious that even the simple process of "DR" is way beyond your abilities. otn |
DR practice
ah, yes. now we have over the knee baldly stating that "the facts of
navigation" don't follow the laws of physics. over the knee does not give any reason for this, but just flatly states it is true. the very same arguement made by true believers as to why astrology works. yeah. well over the knee hasn't crashed yet, so it must be true, right? don't let the facts of science confuse you, over the knee. nevermind that every last physicist on the planet is laughing at you. Don't let the facts of navigation confuse you, jaxass. Never mind that every last navigator on the planet is laughing at you. ROFLMAO otn don't let the facts of science confuse you, over the knee. nevermind that every last physicist on the planet is laughing at you. Don't let the facts of navigation confuse you, jaxass. Never mind that every last navigator on the planet is laughing at you. ROFLMAO otn |
DR practice
JAXAshby wrote: ah, yes. now we have over the knee baldly stating that "the facts of navigation" don't follow the laws of physics. over the knee does not give any reason for this, but just flatly states it is true. the very same arguement made by true believers as to why astrology works. yeah. well over the knee hasn't crashed yet, so it must be true, right? ROFLMAO Ahhhh jaxass, you're always good for a laugh!! You can't argue any point as to what "DR" is or might be, so you go off running in circles yelling "physics, physics". You know nothing about applying set and drift or how it may be determined, so you claim "astrology,astrology". You might be qualified to navigate in LI sound in daylight with unlimited visibility within a mile of the beach, but never offshore, as you've proven you can't even safely round Hatteras with a couple of GPS's. BTW Yer right, I haven't crashed yet and I've been doin it fer about 45 years .....course, even idiots like you can do it nowadays .... as long as you have enough spare gps receivers and batteries and don't lose the signal for some reason..... then again, mebbe not. Ahhhh well, enough jaxnonsense for this weekend. otn |
DR practice
yeah, that's it. yesterday means tomorrow, green means frying pan and DR means
whatever you want, today at 7:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time when posting as what the frick ever. Date: 7/17/2004 7:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: et JAXAshby wrote: ah, yes. now we have over the knee baldly stating that "the facts of navigation" don't follow the laws of physics. over the knee does not give any reason for this, but just flatly states it is true. the very same arguement made by true believers as to why astrology works. yeah. well over the knee hasn't crashed yet, so it must be true, right? ROFLMAO Ahhhh jaxass, you're always good for a laugh!! You can't argue any point as to what "DR" is or might be, so you go off running in circles yelling "physics, physics". You know nothing about applying set and drift or how it may be determined, so you claim "astrology,astrology". You might be qualified to navigate in LI sound in daylight with unlimited visibility within a mile of the beach, but never offshore, as you've proven you can't even safely round Hatteras with a couple of GPS's. BTW Yer right, I haven't crashed yet and I've been doin it fer about 45 years .....course, even idiots like you can do it nowadays .... as long as you have enough spare gps receivers and batteries and don't lose the signal for some reason..... then again, mebbe not. Ahhhh well, enough jaxnonsense for this weekend. otn |
DR practice
JAXAshby wrote: yeah, that's it. yesterday means tomorrow, green means frying pan and DR means whatever you want, today at 7:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time when posting as what the frick ever. Now, now, jax .... don't get yer spandex speedo in an uproar ..... simply stated, you just don't know enough about actual navigation to have the ability to carry on an intelligent discussion on the subject. BTW, next time you look up "dead reckoning", "ded reckoning", "deduced reckoning", read the whole definition. Although I doubt you'll be able to comprehend the possibilities ....... Tataaa otn |
DR practice
Michael wrote: Does he know what DR stands for? Jax knows a basic definition of "DR" ..... or were you asking about me? otn |
DR practice
over the knee obviously does not, so let's help out a bit.
Main Entry: de·duce Pronunciation: di-'düs, dE-; chiefly British -'dyüs Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): de·duced; de·duc·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin deducere, literally, to lead away, from de- + ducere to lead —more at TOW Date: 15th century 1 : to determine by deduction; specifically : to infer from a general principle synonym see INFER - de·duc·ible /-'d(y)ü-s&-b&l/ adjective Does he know what DR stands for? "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... yeah, that's it. yesterday means tomorrow, green means frying pan and DR means whatever you want, today at 7:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time when posting as what the frick ever. Date: 7/17/2004 7:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: et JAXAshby wrote: ah, yes. now we have over the knee baldly stating that "the facts of navigation" don't follow the laws of physics. over the knee does not give any reason for this, but just flatly states it is true. the very same arguement made by true believers as to why astrology works. yeah. well over the knee hasn't crashed yet, so it must be true, right? ROFLMAO Ahhhh jaxass, you're always good for a laugh!! You can't argue any point as to what "DR" is or might be, so you go off running in circles yelling "physics, physics". You know nothing about applying set and drift or how it may be determined, so you claim "astrology,astrology". You might be qualified to navigate in LI sound in daylight with unlimited visibility within a mile of the beach, but never offshore, as you've proven you can't even safely round Hatteras with a couple of GPS's. BTW Yer right, I haven't crashed yet and I've been doin it fer about 45 years .....course, even idiots like you can do it nowadays .... as long as you have enough spare gps receivers and batteries and don't lose the signal for some reason..... then again, mebbe not. Ahhhh well, enough jaxnonsense for this weekend. otn |
DR practice
Michael wrote:
Does he know what DR stands for? ... were you asking about me? unless he is dumb, he was asking about you. otn |
DR practice
oh, ah, DR means doctor, doesn't it? or Dominican Republic? or Donna Rogers
(as in stripper)? or dumb rummy, as in over the knee No, not you. I just wondered if he knew what the letters stood for? I missed the initial part of this and for whatever reason the provider won't give them up when I sign on. M. "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Michael wrote: Does he know what DR stands for? Jax knows a basic definition of "DR" ..... or were you asking about me? otn |
DR practice
over the knee, **if** you have known references point **then** you are not
deducing anything at all about where you are. why are you being such a dumb cluck? yeah, that's it. yesterday means tomorrow, green means frying pan and DR means whatever you want, today at 7:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time when posting as what the frick ever. Now, now, jax .... don't get yer spandex speedo in an uproar ..... simply stated, you just don't know enough about actual navigation to have the ability to carry on an intelligent discussion on the subject. BTW, next time you look up "dead reckoning", "ded reckoning", "deduced reckoning", read the whole definition. Although I doubt you'll be able to comprehend the possibilities ....... Tataaa otn |
DR practice
Of course DR requires a known reference point. If you weren't so convinced
navigation is impossible without a GPS you might learn how it works. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... over the knee, **if** you have known references point **then** you are not deducing anything at all about where you are. why are you being such a dumb cluck? yeah, that's it. yesterday means tomorrow, green means frying pan and DR means whatever you want, today at 7:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time when posting as what the frick ever. Now, now, jax .... don't get yer spandex speedo in an uproar ..... simply stated, you just don't know enough about actual navigation to have the ability to carry on an intelligent discussion on the subject. BTW, next time you look up "dead reckoning", "ded reckoning", "deduced reckoning", read the whole definition. Although I doubt you'll be able to comprehend the possibilities ....... Tataaa otn |
DR practice
jeff, if you have a known reference (sic) point, then you are not deducing
anything at all. knowing the direction you are pointing and your speed through the water gives you no known reference (sic) points at all. none. btw, "known reference points" is a double redundancy saying the same thing over again twice. reference points are by definition known. if you don't know what they are and where they are they are not a reference point. Of course DR requires a known reference point. If you weren't so convinced navigation is impossible without a GPS you might learn how it works. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... over the knee, **if** you have known references point **then** you are not deducing anything at all about where you are. why are you being such a dumb cluck? yeah, that's it. yesterday means tomorrow, green means frying pan and DR means whatever you want, today at 7:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time when posting as what the frick ever. Now, now, jax .... don't get yer spandex speedo in an uproar ..... simply stated, you just don't know enough about actual navigation to have the ability to carry on an intelligent discussion on the subject. BTW, next time you look up "dead reckoning", "ded reckoning", "deduced reckoning", read the whole definition. Although I doubt you'll be able to comprehend the possibilities ....... Tataaa otn |
DR practice
Of course DR requires a known reference point. If you weren't so convinced
navigation is impossible without a GPS you might learn how it works. jeffies, virtually every last pilot in the country with a valid license is laughing at you. "flying blind" is illegal, and has been for seven some decades, and for good reason. All pilots know that and know why. you have changed the definition of DR to that of "pilotage", as in going from one known landmark to the next. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com