Okay. This compass thing. Let's walk it through slowly
JAXAshby
rocks, and therefore insist that following a compass course "will get you
there".
Let's look at this for a moment.
Let's say (for instance) you are in a boat (any kind of boat) 127.354 nm due
east of New York City (that's out in the ocean with nothing around) in an
overcast (that stays) wherein you can see nothing but your boat and the water.
You are just sitting there.
For the next 18 hours the wind blows variously from 045 for 3-1/2 hours at 13.5
knots average with variations up to 16 knots and down to 8 knots, with
direction sometimes (about 20 minutes) from 037 to sometimes (about 17 minutes)
from 052 with some wider variations ... for 6-3/4 hours from 135 (plus 10 or
minus 8) at average 12.7 knots (plus 15 knots, minus 6) with variations ...
7-1/3 hours at 145 (plus 15 or minus 22) at 9 knots (plus 27 to minus 9) and
the remaining time from 062 (plus 3 to minus 33) at 22 (plus 7 or minus 14).
And, for 53 minutes of the total 18 hours, you had a squall pass just to the
north of you giving you changing winds up to 90 knots with changing direction
from 000 to 270.
So, where are you?
Obviously, you can't possibly know. You're drifting.
Now, let's add waves following the wind direction, but with a 3 hour lag. Also
let's add in the waves of a nearly spent tropical storm 600 miles to the SW,
and the waves of a developing low to the NW about 24 hours away. These waves
add and substract to each other and twist and roll your boat so sometimes more
and sometimes less of the hull is shown to the wind. The waves themselves also
push you in various directions with various strengths and effects.
So, where are you now?
Also obviously, you can't possibly know.
So, let's suggest you hold your compass in your hand and keeping turning as the
boat turns so that north is alway immediately to your left.
Does this tell you where you are?
Obviously not.
Let's add in the eddies of the Gulf Stream. These currents can be upwards of
three knots or more, and from varying directions.
Makes your position even more uncertain.
Let's turn the engine on and let it run in neutral. Does this tell you where
you are?
Obviously not.
Now, at the end of 18 hours you plainly are somewhere, but just as plainly you
can't possibly have a clue where. You could in fact be upwards of fifty miles
north or south or east or west or any direction from where you started. You're
drifting.
So, let's put the engine in gear so the prop turns and (apparently) pushes the
boat through the water at an absolutely steady 6 knots. Does this change
things?
Yes and no.
Yes, in that you (apparently) moved through, but No because you don't know
which direction.
Also No, because the boat chose its own course.
Okay, now you keep your compass in your hand and keep north on your left as the
boat turns. Does this change things?
Obviously not.
Okay, let's use the engine keep the *boat* pointed so that north is always on
your port beam. Does this change anything at all?
Nope. Not at all. At the end of 18 hours you've (apparently) moved the boat
108 miles east, while the wind and waves and current(s) made your position
unknown by 50 miles north or south or east or west.
Running the engine and/or keeping the boat *pointed* 090 in no way stops the
effects of the wind/waves/current(s)
And that old codger dougie who teaches otherwise in his USPS courses doesn't
have a clue. If he had ever been out there, he would know the above. Or at
least he would if he were as smart as the average mariner.
Brian
That's why you need GPS.
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010713181459...@ng-ml1.aol.com...
HLAviation
No, but you can pretty accurately estimate their effects. I guess it's a good
thing mariners didn't know that it wasn't possible to navigate by DR (as
Lindberg did crossing the Atlantic) since thats all you get in the Atlantic
sometimes for weeks at a time due to cloud cover. It would have taken till the
advent of GPS before anyone would have left sight of land.
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
JAXAshby
>No, but you can pretty accurately estimate their effects. I guess it's a
>good
>thing mariners didn't know that it wasn't possible to navigate by DR (as
>Lindberg did crossing the Atlantic) since thats all you get in the Atlantic
>sometimes for weeks at a time due to cloud cover. It would have taken till
>the
>advent of GPS before anyone would have left sight of land.
You know, H-Lax, I just explained the Theory of Relativity in terms a
bottom-half high school graduate could understand, you, once again, proved that
old adage there is no one so stupid as he who won't learn.
Geesh.
Btw, that's "Lindbergh", not "Lindberg".
btw-2, the dude had not only a usable and used radio for direction finding, he
also had the side windows to look at to see the French coast as he came up on
it and later Paris where he landed.
Geesh, H-Lax! You *claim* to have a pilot's license, so you would know all
this stuff.
Obvious conclusion: You lied about your license and flying experience as well
as all that other stuff. (Remember when you admitted to us how you got to be
such an "expert in diesels" by "watching the engines vibrate" for hours on end?
Mark
the Sun or stars.The "old time" sailors looked to the stars to figure out
where they were. The Polynesians could navigate across the pacific and find
the Hawaiian islands.
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010713181459...@ng-ml1.aol.com...
Doug Meredith
"Mark" <mos...@home.com> wrote in message
news:uON37.9433$JN6.1...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> Let's not forget that once in a while, the overcast clears and you can
see
> the Sun or stars.The "old time" sailors looked to the stars to figure
out
> where they were. The Polynesians could navigate across the pacific
and find
> the Hawaiian islands.
Impossible. Jax says that Albert says so, so it can't be right. They
must have just been lucky.
HLAviation
>bottom-half high school graduate could understand, you, once again, proved
>that
>old adage there is no one so stupid as he who won't learn.
>
Look Jaxoffby, the only relativity you understand is the relativity of cum
hitting you in the eye. Lindbergh used no RDF while in the mid Atlantic,
Columbus used no electronics, the polynesians didn't even use compasses, so
relative on sucking some more dick and taking it up the ass.
http://fathom.org/teemingmillions/jax.html
Your just another in a long line of internet pseudo-intellectual idiots. Your
claimed knowledge is always contradicted by the arguements you make. What kind
of plane was it you built anyway?
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
Steven Shelikoff
>
> It seems a couple of people want everyone out there to get lost and/or hit
> rocks, and therefore insist that following a compass course "will get you
> there".
>
> Let's look at this for a moment.
>
> Let's say (for instance) you are in a boat (any kind of boat) 127.354 nm due
> east of New York City (that's out in the ocean with nothing around) in an
> Nope. Not at all. At the end of 18 hours you've (apparently) moved the boat
> 108 miles east, while the wind and waves and current(s) made your position
> unknown by 50 miles north or south or east or west.
Jackie, there you go again displaying your utter lack of the principles
of navigation. In your worst case compass example that I snipped above,
you do know where you are with an uncertainty of 50 miles. Even you
should be able to admit that since you're the one who said it above.
*Every* navigation tool has an error. The difference between them is
how much the error is. Which one is "good enough" depends on how much
error you can tolerate in your particular situation. If the goal is to
merely reach the continental shelf on the other side of an ocean, you
can tolerate much more error than following a compass course will
introduce.
Now go ahead and spout some more of your BS
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
[...]
> http://fathom.org/dontwanttopropagate/jax.html
Damn it, I've been trying to forget that I ever saw those pictures.
Steve
JAXAshby
So, why don't you? They were never intended for a guy. Now, if your sister is
normal AND of reasonable weight ........
John Gaquin
due
> east of New York City (that's out in the ocean with nothing around)
Jax, I know you're just trying to make some point here about people and
compasses, but you ought to be a bit more careful in setting your scenario
if you want to retain your hard-won credibility. If you park your boat
127.354 nm due east of Central Park, you'll be sitting in the water about
30 SE of Block Island, and about 40 SW of Martha's Vineyard. That's some of
the busiest sportfishing water in the NE -- you'd be surrounded by hordes of
boats, and would simply have to ask for help; no need to let yourself drift!
If, by chance, there were no other boats about, the tidal currents and the
Gulf Stream in that area would deposit you, at the end of eighteen hours,
either aground upon or within sight of the Vineyard or Nantucket. Just
trying to help here........
JG
LaBomba182
>From: jax...@aol.com
>>Damn it, I've been trying to forget that I ever saw those pictures.
>>
>>Steve
>
>So, why don't you? They were never intended for a guy. Now, if your sister
>is
>normal AND of reasonable weight ........
No luck with the guys or girls? After seeing these pictures it comes as no
surprise.
http://fathom.org/teemingmillions/jax.html
Capt.(jaxass personal hero)Bill
Kevin in San Diego
Kevin
"LaBomba182" <labom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010714004935...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
Shen44
exercises in futility.
Hey Jax ! ever try navigating across a stretch of water just using a compass
and fathometer and pilot chart?
Nah, don't answer that, we'd just open another can of worms.
Shen
MadCow57
Go ahead - it's not there anymore, but the error message is amusing.
JAXAshby
>the Sun or stars.The "old time" sailors looked to the stars to figure out
>where they were. The Polynesians could navigate across the pacific and find
>the Hawaiian islands.
Absolutely. However, the point is that following a "compass course" won't get
you there. And it won't.
JAXAshby
half -- writes:
I said no such thing. If you had spent just a little more time studying back
in grade school, you could read a tad bit better
So, dougie, tell us once again how being an old codger in the USPS gives you a
capability directly from God that God gives no one else.
Geesh. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb
JAXAshby
his feet with:
>JAX, there you go again displaying your utter lack of the principles
>of navigation. In your worst case compass example that I snipped above,
>you do know where you are with an uncertainty of 50 miles.
No, stevie. You're off by 50 miles (or more, or much more, you can't know) in
any directions in just 18 hours. That means you're somewhere in nearly 2,000
square miles of ocean. At the end of 36 hours (a day and a half to dougie who
never even got to high school), that's almost 8,000 square miles of ocean
you're lost in. At the end of three days (not an uncommon length of time to be
caught in an overcast), you're lost in 30,000 square miles of ocean (or more,
much more. you can't know).
>*Every* navigation tool has an error.
That's the point, stevie. And "error" in following "a compass course" is that
you won't get there without outside references.
>The difference between them is
>how much the error is. Which one is "good enough" depends on how much
>error you can tolerate in your particular situation.
30,000 (or more) square miles in three day is a LOT of error. I'm not sure
what kind of situation *you* might find yourself in where *you* feel that is
"good enough" (your words).
>If the goal is to
>merely reach the continental shelf on the other side of an ocean, you
>can tolerate much more error than following a compass course will
>introduce.
What you're saying here, stevie, is that you agree that following a compass
course is so bad, has so much error that the best *you* can hope for where
leaving nyc for Europe to run into land somewhere between Norway and South
Africa.
That's a bit of error, stevie. You feel comfortable with it to take "following
a compass course"?
JAXAshby
>Kevin
Please don't look, kevin. They're intended for women who were born female.
JAXAshby
>due
>> east of New York City (that's out in the ocean with nothing around)
>
>Jax, I know you're just trying to make some point here about people and
>compasses, but you ought to be a bit more careful in setting your scenario
>if you want to retain your hard-won credibility. If you park your boat
>127.354 nm due east of Central Park, you'll be sitting in the water about
>30 SE of Block Island, and about 40 SW of Martha's Vineyard. That's some of
Okay, so go to 527.354 nm due east and start there.
JAXAshby
>I see jax couldn't get anywhere with me, so he's trying another one of his
>exercises in futility.
Yup. You're right, she(n). It's often REALLY futile trying to have any
semblance of a conversation with those so truly stupid as you tell us you are.
Please don't breed, she(n), please don't breed.
>Hey Jax ! ever try navigating across a stretch of water just using a compass
>and fathometer and pilot chart?
>Nah, don't answer that, we'd just open another can of worms.
The discussion, she(n), was NOT about fathometers. In fact, it specifically
about NOT having the info from a fathometer available.
If you had spent another few years in grade school, maybe you would have
learned to read a tad bit better.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> stevie -- who adds new dimensions to the term "sophist" -- stutters and stamps
> his feet with:
>
> >JAX, there you go again displaying your utter lack of the principles
> >of navigation. In your worst case compass example that I snipped above,
> >you do know where you are with an uncertainty of 50 miles.
>
> No, stevie. You're off by 50 miles (or more, or much more, you can't know) in
> any directions in just 18 hours. That means you're somewhere in nearly 2,000
> square miles of ocean. At the end of 36 hours (a day and a half to dougie who
> never even got to high school), that's almost 8,000 square miles of ocean
> you're lost in. At the end of three days (not an uncommon length of time to be
> caught in an overcast), you're lost in 30,000 square miles of ocean (or more,
> much more. you can't know).
The point is that you are no more "lost" than if you had a standard GPS
but needed to know your position to within 1". Being "lost" in 30000 sq
miles of ocean is the same as knowing exactly where you are if all
you're trying to do is hit a continent.
>
> >*Every* navigation tool has an error.
>
> That's the point, stevie. And "error" in following "a compass course" is that
> you won't get there without outside references.
Sure it will, depending on where "there" is. Just three weeks ago I
navigated strictly by compass (GPS was off) to travel down the coast
about 12-15 miles offshore from Barnegat inlet to Sea Isle. I made it
just fine. If I didn't use my compass, I'd probably be in the Bahamas
by now. Wait, I shouldn't have looked at the compass!
> >The difference between them is
> >how much the error is. Which one is "good enough" depends on how much
> >error you can tolerate in your particular situation.
>
> 30,000 (or more) square miles in three day is a LOT of error. I'm not sure
> what kind of situation *you* might find yourself in where *you* feel that is
> "good enough" (your words).
Not really. The situation where it's "good enough" is when you're 3
days offshore (maybe 300 miles?) and want to make it back to North
America. A compass will get you there no problem, and 30,000 sq miles
of error is not an issue, no more than 1 sq mile would be.
> >If the goal is to
> >merely reach the continental shelf on the other side of an ocean, you
> >can tolerate much more error than following a compass course will
> >introduce.
>
> What you're saying here, stevie, is that you agree that following a compass
> course is so bad, has so much error that the best *you* can hope for where
> leaving nyc for Europe to run into land somewhere between Norway and South
> Africa.
What I'm saying is that it's so good, it will get you to land with
certainty. The best you can hope for is hitting exactly where you
planned, which is entirely possible if you understood what error means.
> That's a bit of error, stevie. You feel comfortable with it to take "following
> a compass course"?
Sure, if nothing else is available. Hell, I felt perfectly comfortable
following a compass course 3 weeks ago even when I had 2 GPSs and a
LORAN on board.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
[...]
> What you're saying here, stevie, is that you agree that following a compass
> course is so bad, has so much error that the best *you* can hope for where
> leaving nyc for Europe to run into land somewhere between Norway and South
> Africa.
Hey, at least you're finally admitting that you can navigate strictly by
following a compass course. In the real world outside the confines of
your feeble mind, it's not nearly as bad as you're suggesting above.
But you're finally agreeing that navigation by compass alone is
possible. That's a start.
Steve
JAXAshby
>but needed to know your position to within 1". Being "lost" in 30000 sq
>miles of ocean is the same as knowing exactly where you are
Now, *that's* wierd. You been talking with dougie of the USPS lately?
>Sure it will, depending on where "there" is. Just three weeks ago I
>navigated strictly by compass (GPS was off) to travel down the coast
>about 12-15 miles offshore from Barnegat inlet to Sea Isle. I made it
>just fine.
That's a coastal run, with the shore not far away. You have birds, water
color, smells, depthsounder info, landmarks to guide you. You went out, turned
right, went a bit and turned right again and began looking for shore markers.
That's not hardly "folowing a compass course" dougie has said if you followed
the compass course you would have arrived without looking at anything but the
compass, the knotmeter and the clock.
>Not really. The situation where it's "good enough" is when you're 3
>days offshore (maybe 300 miles?) and want to make it back to North
>America.
We were never talking about finding a continent. We were talking about getting
to a specific point by "following a compass course" Remember that old codger
dougie from the USPS? He told us *he* knew *he* could "get there" by
"following a compass course".
>What I'm saying is that it's so good, it will get you to land with
>certainty. The best you can hope for is hitting exactly where you
>planned, which is entirely possible if you understood what error means.
Yup, if you define "hitting exactly where you planned" (your words) as anywhere
from Norway to South Africa, it's entirely possible you'll get there.
But let me ask you this question. In thise overcast you are in with just your
compass, a clock and a knotmeter, just how to you make sure you don't hit the
rock in Nova Scotia, or Newfoundland, or Cape Fear or ...?
Going until you hit something was not what the discussion was about. Getting
to your planned destination by "following a compass course" was.
>Hell, I felt perfectly comfortable
>following a compass course 3 weeks ago even when I had 2 GPSs and a
>LORAN on board.
And some people feel comfortable eating mushrooms they found in the woods.
JAXAshby
three definitions:
1.)
*** SOPHIST ***
Soph"ist , n. [F. -sophiste , L.
-sophistes , fr. Gr. philosophy, and politics in ancient Greece; especially,
one of
those who, by their fallacious but plausible reasoning, puzzled
inquirers after truth, weakened the faith of the people, and drew
upon themselves general hatred and contempt.
"Many of the 'Sophists' doubdtless card not for truth
or morality, and merely professed to teach how to make the worse
appear the better reason; but there scems no reason to hold that
they were a special class, teaching special opinions; "
Liddell & Scott.
2. Hence, an impostor in argument; a captious or
fallacious reasoner.
2.)
soph搏st (sfst)
n.
One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
A scholar or thinker.
Sophist Any of a group of professional fifth-century B.C. Greek philosophers
and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who
were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and
dialectic.
3.)
sophist \Soph"ist\, n. [F. sophiste, L. sophistes, fr. Gr. ?. See Sophism.] 1.
One of a class of men who taught eloquence, philosophy, and politics in ancient
Greece; especially, one of those who, by their fallacious but plausible
reasoning, puzzled inquirers after truth, weakened the faith of the people, and
drew upon themselves general hatred and contempt.
Many of the Sophists doubdtless card not for truth or morality, and merely
professed to teach how to make the worse appear the better reason; but there
scems no reason to hold that they were a special class, teaching special
opinions; even Socrates and Plato were sometimes styled Sophists. --Liddell &
Scott.
2. Hence, an impostor in argument; a captious or fallacious reasoner.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> H-Lax writes:
>
> >No, but you can pretty accurately estimate their effects. I guess it's a
> >good
> >thing mariners didn't know that it wasn't possible to navigate by DR (as
> >Lindberg did crossing the Atlantic) since thats all you get in the Atlantic
> >sometimes for weeks at a time due to cloud cover. It would have taken till
> >the
> >advent of GPS before anyone would have left sight of land.
>
> You know, H-Lax, I just explained the Theory of Relativity in terms a
> bottom-half high school graduate could understand, you, once again, proved that
> old adage there is no one so stupid as he who won't learn.
If Einstein were alive today, he'd slap you silly right after he
explained that the entire purpose of a compass is to read an outside
reference, the direction of the earth's magnetic field. A compass uses
that outside reference to help you navigate. The only navigation system
that doesn't use an outside reference is an inertial navigation system,
and they can work quite well.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> >The point is that you are no more "lost" than if you had a standard GPS
> >but needed to know your position to within 1". Being "lost" in 30000 sq
> >miles of ocean is the same as knowing exactly where you are
>
> Now, *that's* wierd. You been talking with dougie of the USPS lately?
>
> >Sure it will, depending on where "there" is. Just three weeks ago I
> >navigated strictly by compass (GPS was off) to travel down the coast
> >about 12-15 miles offshore from Barnegat inlet to Sea Isle. I made it
> >just fine.
>
> That's a coastal run, with the shore not far away. You have birds, water
> color, smells, depthsounder info, landmarks to guide you. You went out, turned
> right, went a bit and turned right again and began looking for shore markers.
> That's not hardly "folowing a compass course" dougie has said if you followed
> the compass course you would have arrived without looking at anything but the
> compass, the knotmeter and the clock.
I was out of sight of land, followed the compass, knot meter and clock,
and returned to within sight of land where I expected to be. I didn't
use any other info since the water color was constant, the depth was
constant, there were no landmarks, the smell was constant and the birds
were of no help. Yes, Jackie, it is entirely possible to navigate
strictly with a compass, knot meter and clock. Maybe *you* can't, but
don't tell people who have done it that what they did was impossible.
> >Not really. The situation where it's "good enough" is when you're 3
> >days offshore (maybe 300 miles?) and want to make it back to North
> >America.
>
> We were never talking about finding a continent. We were talking about getting
> to a specific point by "following a compass course" Remember that old codger
> dougie from the USPS? He told us *he* knew *he* could "get there" by
> "following a compass course".
You can't get to a specific point no matter what you use for
navigation. So stop trying to confuse the issue with that specious
argument.
> >What I'm saying is that it's so good, it will get you to land with
> >certainty. The best you can hope for is hitting exactly where you
> >planned, which is entirely possible if you understood what error means.
>
> Yup, if you define "hitting exactly where you planned" (your words) as anywhere
> from Norway to South Africa, it's entirely possible you'll get there.
Thank you! You're finally starting to "get it."
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
> n.
>
> One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
> A scholar or thinker.
> Sophist Any of a group of professional fifth-century B.C. Greek philosophers
> and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who
> were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and
> dialectic.
>
> 3.)
>
> sophist \Soph"ist\, n. [F. sophiste, L. sophistes, fr. Gr. ?. See Sophism.] 1.
> One of a class of men who taught eloquence, philosophy, and politics in ancient
> Greece; especially, one of those who, by their fallacious but plausible
> reasoning, puzzled inquirers after truth, weakened the faith of the people, and
> drew upon themselves general hatred and contempt.
>
> Many of the Sophists doubdtless card not for truth or morality, and merely
> professed to teach how to make the worse appear the better reason; but there
> scems no reason to hold that they were a special class, teaching special
> opinions; even Socrates and Plato were sometimes styled Sophists. --Liddell &
> Scott.
>
> 2. Hence, an impostor in argument; a captious or fallacious reasoner.
Wonderful! You just described your entire "can't navigate by compass"
argument as sophistic and yourself as a sophist. We're making
progress. And with that, I'm off to the boat for a sail. I'll let you
know if it's possible to navigate by compass from practical experience
rather than your type of sophistic arguments.
Steve
JAXAshby
>JAXAshby wrote:
>>
>> H-Lax writes:
>>
>> >No, but you can pretty accurately estimate their effects. I guess it's a
>> >good
>> >thing mariners didn't know that it wasn't possible to navigate by DR (as
>> >Lindberg did crossing the Atlantic) since thats all you get in the
>Atlantic
>> >sometimes for weeks at a time due to cloud cover. It would have taken
>till
>> >the
>> >advent of GPS before anyone would have left sight of land.
>>
>> You know, H-Lax, I just explained the Theory of Relativity in terms a
>> bottom-half high school graduate could understand, you, once again, proved
>that
>> old adage there is no one so stupid as he who won't learn.
>
>If Einstein were alive today, he'd slap you silly right after he
>explained that the entire purpose of a compass is to read an outside
>reference, the direction of the earth's magnetic field. A compass uses
>that outside reference to help you navigate.
Okay. You're somewhere and to your left is north. Where on the Earth are you?
Now, turn so north is to your back. Are you now somewere else?
The only navigation system
>that doesn't use an outside reference is an inertial navigation system,
>and they can work quite well.
Stevie, an inertial nav system uses the entire universe as its reference. If
you don't understand that, you couldn't begin to understand that if the entire
universe were just you and a baseball you couldn't throw the ball away from
yourself.
Give is up, stevie, and take multiple gps's with you, stay in sight of land,
don't depart in fog.
Either that or make peace with your God whom you feel has anointed you as
someone for whom the laws of physics don't apply
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
JAXAshby
It seems you never really have sailed off the Jersey shore, for if you had you
would most certainly know the difference in the waters there. Do you suppose
that maybe -- just maybe now -- you are too stupid to consciously realize the
differences, but you're body does? Nah.
Do you also understand that you "followed a compass course" for only part of
the way -- the part where the increasing error of your position was offset by
you're being waaaaaay out there relative to the distance you were traveling?
>
>> >Not really. The situation where it's "good enough" is when you're 3
>> >days offshore (maybe 300 miles?) and want to make it back to North
>> >America.
>>
>> We were never talking about finding a continent. We were talking about
>getting
>> to a specific point by "following a compass course" Remember that old
>codger
>> dougie from the USPS? He told us *he* knew *he* could "get there" by
>> "following a compass course".
>
>You can't get to a specific point no matter what you use for
>navigation.
Really? Did youknow fighter jets have been making carrier landings -- at speed
-- in zero-zero conditions since 1956?
>So stop trying to confuse the issue with that specious
>argument.
Specious, eh? First *you* argue for being able to find a far distant marker
buoy in a fog and then you argue to hitting Europe or Africa is "close enough".
yeah, sure. Specious.
>
>> >What I'm saying is that it's so good, it will get you to land with
>> >certainty. The best you can hope for is hitting exactly where you
>> >planned, which is entirely possible if you understood what error means.
>>
>> Yup, if you define "hitting exactly where you planned" (your words) as
>anywhere
>> from Norway to South Africa, it's entirely possible you'll get there.
>
>Thank you! You're finally starting to "get it."
Then, I asked how do *you* KNOW you won't hit Nova Scotia first. And you
answer is?
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
JAXAshby
>argument as sophistic and yourself as a sophist.
I said no such thing. I did say *you* are changing the conversation again and
again and again annd again *trying* to save your sorry intellectual butt.
We're making
>progress.
"We" are not. *you* STILL believe that trash about "following a compass
course" will get you there and that the laws of physics don't apply to you.
>And with that, I'm off to the boat for a sail. I'll let you
>know if it's possible to navigate by compass from practical experience
>rather than your type of sophistic arguments.
Stevie, *no one* (but you, it seems) has *ever* called the Theory of Relativity
a "sophist arguement".
And *IF* you had *any* experience doing any distance at all in an overcast
you'd know all that has been said, at least intuitively.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
John DeRosa
opinion:
What in God's name is your point?
Are you arguing that compasses are bad? Boats should not have compasses?
It's wrong to know how to navigate without relying on signals from a
fleet of satellites?
GPS is great -- but if you accidentally smash your screen, or a component
dies, or you lose reception, or any of 1,000 other bad things happen, you
better know how to navigate by compass.
John
Wozzy
stu...@qwest.net says...
>
> What in God's name is your point?
>
> Are you arguing that compasses are bad? Boats should not have compasses?
> It's wrong to know how to navigate without relying on signals from a
> fleet of satellites?
>
> GPS is great -- but if you accidentally smash your screen, or a component
> dies, or you lose reception, or any of 1,000 other bad things happen, you
> better know how to navigate by compass.
>
> John
Why not use your backup GPS?
Wozzy
Bob
> the Hawaiian islands.
>
I've been to the Hawaiian Islands, and everyone there is Japanese.
Bob
LaBomba182
>>>I havent looked, I'm afraid. I don't want to be scarred for life.<< --
>Kevin
>
>Go ahead - it's not there anymore, but the error message is amusing.
>
>
It still comes up. Which is more than I bet you can say about jaxass.
http://fathom.org/teemingmillions/jax.html
Capt. Bill
Shen44
>about NOT having the info from a fathometer available.
>
>If you had spent another few years in grade school, maybe you would have
>learned to read a tad bit better.
>
Once again, dipsquat can't answer a simple question with a simple answer....are
you a politician, mayhaps?
Doug Meredith
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010714073837...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> >Impossible. Jax says that Albert says so, so it can't be right.
They
> >must have just been lucky.
> >
>
> I said no such thing. If you had spent just a little more time
studying back
> in grade school, you could read a tad bit better
BS you didn't. As you don't have a clue about what you are saying, at
least try and remember what you typed. You have typed at least 10 times
that by using a compass to navigate, that the thousands of us that do it
are just lucky we got where we wanted to go. And your reason for this
"luck" is your buddy Albert and his theories. Its just too bad that the
world doesn't work off theories. But you wouldn't know that because
that is all you have to offer. Try living in the real world, not in a
textbook. And try to learn some new words.
MadCow57
http://fathom.org/teemingmillions/jax.html<< -- Capt. Bill
OIC - he looks like a California faggot.
Keith
which direction he's drifting. GPS is great, but folks got around the
world long before it was invented. Nicely disguised troll, JAX.
Brian wrote:
>
> Correct.
> That's why you need GPS.
> "JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010713181459...@ng-ml1.aol.com...
> > It seems a couple of people want everyone out there to get lost and/or hit
> > rocks, and therefore insist that following a compass course "will get you
> > there".
> >
> > Let's look at this for a moment.
> >
> > Let's say (for instance) you are in a boat (any kind of boat) 127.354 nm
> due
> > east of New York City (that's out in the ocean with nothing around) in an
> > overcast (that stays) wherein you can see nothing but your boat and the
> water.
> > You are just sitting there.
> >
> > For the next 18 hours the wind blows variously from 045 for 3-1/2 hours at
> 13.5
> > knots average with variations up to 16 knots and down to 8 knots, with
> > direction sometimes (about 20 minutes) from 037 to sometimes (about 17
> minutes)
> > from 052 with some wider variations ... for 6-3/4 hours from 135 (plus 10
> or
> > minus 8) at average 12.7 knots (plus 15 knots, minus 6) with variations
> ...
> > 7-1/3 hours at 145 (plus 15 or minus 22) at 9 knots (plus 27 to minus 9)
> and
> > the remaining time from 062 (plus 3 to minus 33) at 22 (plus 7 or minus
> 14).
> > And, for 53 minutes of the total 18 hours, you had a squall pass just to
> the
> > north of you giving you changing winds up to 90 knots with changing
> direction
> > from 000 to 270.
> >
> > So, where are you?
> >
> > Obviously, you can't possibly know. You're drifting.
> >
> > Now, let's add waves following the wind direction, but with a 3 hour lag.
> Also
> > let's add in the waves of a nearly spent tropical storm 600 miles to the
> SW,
> > and the waves of a developing low to the NW about 24 hours away. These
> waves
> > add and substract to each other and twist and roll your boat so sometimes
> more
> > and sometimes less of the hull is shown to the wind. The waves themselves
> also
> > push you in various directions with various strengths and effects.
> >
> > So, where are you now?
> >
> > Also obviously, you can't possibly know.
> >
> > So, let's suggest you hold your compass in your hand and keeping turning
> as the
> > boat turns so that north is alway immediately to your left.
> >
> > Does this tell you where you are?
> >
> > Obviously not.
> >
> > Let's add in the eddies of the Gulf Stream. These currents can be upwards
> of
> > three knots or more, and from varying directions.
> >
> > Makes your position even more uncertain.
> >
> > Let's turn the engine on and let it run in neutral. Does this tell you
> where
> > you are?
> >
> > Obviously not.
> >
> > Now, at the end of 18 hours you plainly are somewhere, but just as plainly
> you
> > can't possibly have a clue where. You could in fact be upwards of fifty
> miles
> > north or south or east or west or any direction from where you started.
> You're
> > drifting.
> >
> > So, let's put the engine in gear so the prop turns and (apparently) pushes
> the
> > boat through the water at an absolutely steady 6 knots. Does this change
> > things?
> >
> > Yes and no.
> >
> > Yes, in that you (apparently) moved through, but No because you don't know
> > which direction.
> >
> > Also No, because the boat chose its own course.
> >
> > Okay, now you keep your compass in your hand and keep north on your left
> as the
> > boat turns. Does this change things?
> >
> > Obviously not.
> >
> > Okay, let's use the engine keep the *boat* pointed so that north is always
> on
> > your port beam. Does this change anything at all?
> >
> > Nope. Not at all. At the end of 18 hours you've (apparently) moved the
> boat
> > 108 miles east, while the wind and waves and current(s) made your position
> > unknown by 50 miles north or south or east or west.
> >
> > Running the engine and/or keeping the boat *pointed* 090 in no way stops
> the
> > effects of the wind/waves/current(s)
> >
> > And that old codger dougie who teaches otherwise in his USPS courses
> doesn't
> > have a clue. If he had ever been out there, he would know the above. Or
> at
> > least he would if he were as smart as the average mariner.
--
__________________
Keith
'First things first -- but not necessarily in that order' -- Dr Who
Jim Donohue
discussion about navigation buried here.
There is a crucial difference between GPS/celestial and DR. GPS and
celestial are not subject to cumulative error. While running on a DR plot
your knowledge of your exact position worsens with time. You can plot your
DR position as often as you like using compass, clock and speed - but it
will still get less accurate as time passes. If you are reasonably
sophisticated you can even plot the circle of possible position that
contains your true position to some probability.
The standard practice when running a DR plot is to begin a new plot whenever
you obtain an absolute position... The rationale being that an absolute
position though having some inherent error is still better than the relative
one of a DR plot.
With a GPS of course there is no rationale for making a DR plot - you simply
enter the GPS numbers at the desired interval. You can as well project such
a course into the future for various purposes - but you then correct it with
later GPS positions.
Leaving the West Coast of the US you could go to the Hawaiians by DR - but
you could well miss. It is however not certain that you would not get to
the islands - I haven't worked the numbers but I suspect that you have a
better than even shot of finding them. I would however prefer more
certainty in my navigation.
I think we have reached the point where the teaching of DR will be as a life
boat skill along with celestial.
Jim
"Steven Shelikoff" <shel...@ss.net> wrote in message
Jim Donohue
would suggest you should be able to get out another compass and another GPS
and maybe one more after that. I think I would prefer to run out of
compasses before I run out of GPSs. And after I ran out of GPSs I would
prefer A sextant to a compass.. This is of course all with an offshore
perspective. If I was in sight of known land I am not sure I would worry a
lot about losing either.
Jim
"John DeRosa" <stu...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:r0m0ltc413uf97fh8...@4ax.com...
James Medors
the jetties out of Charleston harbor. I started to have real bad chest
pains and felt very weak. I would discover later that I had a real heart
problem. At that moment I just had an overwhelming desire to lay down. So
I put the anchor over the bow but because I was in so much pain I did not
take time to set it. Then I shut the engine off. I used a life jacket for
a pillow and laid down on the floor of my Boston Whaler. The pain eased and
I only intended to lay there a few minutes. However, I was so tired and
weak, I fell asleep. About an hour later I woke up and found myself sitting
in a white cloud. FOG! The first and only time in my life that I have
seen fog in the middle of the day. Visibility was 15 to 20 feet at the the
most. I know that the weather can change quickly on the ocean and trying to
wait out the fog was not an option to me. Since I did not have much slope
on the anchor I did not know if I had drifted. The only navigation
equipment I had was a Danforth Compass mounted on the console. I was
beginning to experience some anxiety. Even though there was no one to talk
to I said out loud, "Don't panic, think, think, think about what you are
going to do". Let me tell you, when you are in a real life situation you
will not think for a second about figuring out the wind/waves/current. All
I wanted that compass to do was get me to land. Any land, anywhere! I knew
I had come out of the jetties on a heading of 130 deg.. So I started the
engine, pulled the anchor and began to move just a little above idle speed
on a heading of 310 deg.. I heard one loud horn blast near me, then I got
scared. In a few minutes a Nuclear Sub coming out of Charleston passed with
in a few feet of me. I know I was supposed to use my horn but I didn't, I
just listened for other horns. That Navy sub didn't use proper horn signals
for fog either. I maintained my heading and speed but I was scared that I
was going to hit someone or something (like a buoy or rocks). I finally
came out of the fog near Fort Sumter at the mouth of Charleston harbor. The
compass worked for me that day, just as it has for millions of people for
hundreds of years, without trying to figure out drift, deviation, wind,
current, etc.. I now have a Garmin GPS on my console but I also still have
a compass and backup hand held compass. Two things I learned that day; 1.
Never go out without a compass. 2. Do not go out alone. I still have a
bad heart (even after surgery) that the doctors tell me thay can't do
anything about, so I do not go out by myself anymore.
JAXAshby
>which direction he's drifting. GPS is great, but folks got around the
>world long before it was invented.
Sorry, Kieth, but you don't seem to understand. Re-read the thread in its
entirety.
JAXAshby
[snip long story, that ends up okay]
James, you had more than a compass. You also had sounds, a submarine, maybe a
sense of which direction the sun was and a small area to get lost in.
This thread started because an old codger from the USPS stated that calculating
a compass course (adjusted for estimated speed, estimated winds, estimated
currents, est everything else) "will get you there".
Can I suggest you spring for a $95 gps for next time? It uses outside
references "to get you there". No hoodoo, no voodoo, no hokous, no pokous.
JAXAshby
>Lindbergh used no RDF while in the mid Atlantic,
You ignorant fool. Check it out.
Then H-Lax makes a truly sad sexual offer I can't imagine anyone would take him
up on.
[snip]
JAXAshby
-- the original discussion was in essence that a boat does not necessaryly go
in the direction you point it (in fact, usually does not) and that you have *no
way* of knowing where it is going without outside references.
The thread was saying the USPS insistance on teaching the calculating of a
compass course was a insistance based on faulty knowledge. The old codgers at
the USPS simply don't know any better.
JAXAshby
>
>Are you arguing that compasses are bad? Boats should not have compasses?
That the error of trusting a compass course grows by the second. Not to
mention, a boat doesn't even go the direction it is pointed.
"Calculating a compass course" is calculating nothing of any accuracy. In
fact, it not even worth doing. (BTDT, and took me just two over the horizon
trips to sit down to figure out why it's worthless.)
>It's wrong to know how to navigate without relying on signals from a
>fleet of satellites?
A compass is not for navigation (it doesn't work for that over such short
distances/short times that you can live with the errors) but rather for
checking the direction from landmarks.
>GPS is great -- but if you accidentally smash your screen, or a component
>dies, or you lose reception, or any of 1,000 other bad things happen, you
>better know how to navigate by compass.
What's to learn? You *can't navigate with a compass. You can do no more than
estimate your direction for very short periods of time over very short
distances.
JAXAshby
>lot about losing either
Yup, when you can see land you know where you are. Then, you can use your
compass to figure which direction you are from that landmark.
HLAviation
Ok you know nothing fag boy, Read this then shut the fuck up.
Charles A. Lindbergh found his way across the Atlantic primarily by using a
type of navigation known as “dead reckoning”. In this type navigation his
primary navigational aids were his eyes, his compass, an accurate clock,and an
ordinary ground map of the land areas he would fly over. He pilotage the pilot
records the elapsed time between two landmarks and then computes his airspeed
using basic arithmetic. The fact that Lindbergh was able to fly over the
Atlantic for over 16 hours, and then end up almost exactly on his planned
course was an incredible feat of skillful flying. While it is true that he had
one of the most advanced instrument panels of its time, it is extremely crude
and unreliable by today’s standards. The experience Lindbergh gained as an
air mail pilot flying between Chicago and St. Louis helped prepare him for his
Atlantic crossing. His night time flying through clouds and storms gave him the
opportunity to perfect the skills necessary in navigating by dead reckoning. In
this type of elementary navigation a pilot uses an airspeed indicator, a
compass, and a clock to locate his or her position along a route. Weather
conditions or light permitting Lindbergh would look for landmarks and correct
his heading if necessary.
It is an exerpt from Yale University,
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1988/6/88.06.05.x.html#l
But I guess you know so much better than they possibly would. Just shut the
fuck up.
http://fathom.org/teemingmillions/jax.html
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
Dan
(dead reconing, blah blah blah)
Indeed, Lindbergh crossed the pond in 1927 and Bill Lear didn't release
the first commercial RDF until 1935.
A famous first ADF user was Amelia Earhart, and we all know how that sopt
of navigation turned out.
dan
--
There are three schools of magic.
One: State a tautology, then ring the changes on its corollaries;
that's philosophy.
Two: Record many facts. Try to find a pattern. Then make a wrong guess
at the next fact; that's science.
Three: Be aware that you live in a malevolent Universe controlled by Murphy's
Law, sometimes offset by Brewster's Factor; that's engineering.
John DeRosa
opinion:
>>Are you arguing that compasses are bad? Boats should not have compasses?
>
>That the error of trusting a compass course grows by the second. Not to
>mention, a boat doesn't even go the direction it is pointed.
>
>"Calculating a compass course" is calculating nothing of any accuracy. In
>fact, it not even worth doing. (BTDT, and took me just two over the horizon
>trips to sit down to figure out why it's worthless.)
You are right that compass navigation has cumulative error. Which is why
you periodically take fixes on known locations!
"A boat doesn't even go the direction it is pointed" - This is true, but
is a total nonsense statement. Yes, there are currents and breezes and
tides and swells and ... So what? Welcome to boating!
>
>>It's wrong to know how to navigate without relying on signals from a
>>fleet of satellites?
>
>A compass is not for navigation (it doesn't work for that over such short
>distances/short times that you can live with the errors) but rather for
>checking the direction from landmarks.
That's a semantic game. "Checking the direction from landmarks" is a
huge oversimplification of navigating by compass. BUT, even so, knowing
where you are relative to known points IS navigation. What else would
you call navigation, but knowing where you are relative to fixed
landmarks? By knowing where you are relative to two fixed landmarks, you
fix your position.
>
>>GPS is great -- but if you accidentally smash your screen, or a component
>>dies, or you lose reception, or any of 1,000 other bad things happen, you
>>better know how to navigate by compass.
>
>What's to learn? You *can't navigate with a compass. You can do no more than
>estimate your direction for very short periods of time over very short
>distances.
>
If you can't navigate with a compass, then what did mariners use before
GPS? I guess they just bounced around into things like corks on the
water and nobody knew where anything was until GPS game along. Guess
transatlantic navigation happened just by dump luck.
GPS is great. It's a very useful tool, and if your GPS is working
correctly then you don't need to use your compass. But, knowing how to
navigate only by GPS is like using a calculator without knowing out to
multiply, divide, add, or subtract.
John
JAXAshby
>the first commercial RDF until 1935.
>
You stupid shit. Starting in 1920, ALL radio stations (in all countries that
signed the accord) were required as part of their license to broadcast their
call letters and their city *every ten minutes*. This was done *specifically*
to provide navigation bearings for ships at sea.
Non-public radio beacons existed to a small extent prior.
JAXAshby
>Ok you know nothing fag boy,
then he goes on to review something written by a person H-Lax *knows* is
misinformed (how do we know H-Lax knows the person is misinformed? Why,
because H-Lax has told us he hold a Private Pilot License issued by the FAA, an
organization that would not issue said license to *ANYBODY* who would say they
would "fly blind").
H-Lax, you dumb shit. Whoever wrote that trash would be laughed at by even a
first year student in the physics department and would be *soundly* chastised
by anyone with a Private Rating.
Ker Riste Almighty, H-Lax!! You *claim* to have pilot's license AND to have
offshore sailing experience. Why in the jesus hell don't you know this stuff.
Everyone else with *either* experience does and you claim to have both.
btw H-Lax. Are you dying of AIDS? You seem a lot preoccupied with
homosexuality, hoping others share your jollies. Well, they don't. Or at
least 99% don't. Get used to it.
JAXAshby
>You are right that compass navigation has cumulative error. Which is why
>you periodically take fixes on known locations!
>
Hey, JD? The discussion was about when you didn't have known locations
available. Maybe you missed that. But even if you did, you *should* know that
if you have known locations, you have no need at all for a compass. Duh.
>"A boat doesn't even go the direction it is pointed" - This is true, but
>is a total nonsense statement.
No hardly nonsense. Think about it for a day or two, stewguts, and you'll
begin to understand. Mariner's have known it for centuries, physics having
proven it's a law of physics some ninety years ago, the FAA mandated it about
seventy years ago. Sooner or later, you'll drag yourself into the early 20th
century.
James Medors
> GPS is great. It's a very useful tool, and if your GPS is working
> correctly then you don't need to use your compass. But, knowing how to
> navigate only by GPS is like using a calculator without knowing out to
> multiply, divide, add, or subtract.
>
> John
>
have a compass on my console and I carry a back up hand held compass.
JAXAshby
>> multiply, divide, add, or subtract.
>>
>> John
>>
>That statement is 100% right. I now have GPS on my console but I still
>have a compass on my console and I carry a back up hand held compass.
>
Do *you* know how to calculate a square root as well? Using just a pencil and
paper?
Would *you* believe most kids today don't know you can even do it at all? Why
is that you ask? Because a.) they're not taught how, and b.) it's useless
information.
HLAviation
>because H-Lax has told us he hold a Private Pilot License
No Jackwad, I hold a Commercial license with MEL SEL &SES ratings with
instrument priviledges. No go pogo your partner. You know nothing but spout
off like you do and you try to sell your point like a used car salesman with a
bunch of bullshit. I call you on your bullshit, and even counter it with a
cite, but you're too fucking stupid to just shut the fuck up.
BTW what plane do claim to have built, and how long did it take you?
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
Steven Shelikoff
>
> >My Compass experience:
>
> [snip long story, that ends up okay]
>
> James, you had more than a compass. You also had sounds, a submarine, maybe a
> sense of which direction the sun was and a small area to get lost in.
Sounds are of no help if you don't know where the source is, i.e., not
an outside reference. Same thing with the sub. You would have
absolutely no idea what direction the sub was going without your
compass.
> This thread started because an old codger from the USPS stated that calculating
> a compass course (adjusted for estimated speed, estimated winds, estimated
> currents, est everything else) "will get you there".
And it will, depending on where he was talking about.
> Can I suggest you spring for a $95 gps for next time? It uses outside
> references "to get you there". No hoodoo, no voodoo, no hokous, no pokous.
There's more hokus pokus in a GPS than a compass.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> stevie, stevie, stevie [sigh] my but you're lost. follow this slowly.
>
> >JAXAshby wrote:
> >>
> >> H-Lax writes:
> >>
> >> >No, but you can pretty accurately estimate their effects. I guess it's a
> >> >good
> >> >thing mariners didn't know that it wasn't possible to navigate by DR (as
> >> >Lindberg did crossing the Atlantic) since thats all you get in the
> >Atlantic
> >> >sometimes for weeks at a time due to cloud cover. It would have taken
> >till
> >> >the
> >> >advent of GPS before anyone would have left sight of land.
> >>
> >> You know, H-Lax, I just explained the Theory of Relativity in terms a
> >> bottom-half high school graduate could understand, you, once again, proved
> >that
> >> old adage there is no one so stupid as he who won't learn.
> >
> >If Einstein were alive today, he'd slap you silly right after he
> >explained that the entire purpose of a compass is to read an outside
> >reference, the direction of the earth's magnetic field. A compass uses
> >that outside reference to help you navigate.
>
> Okay. You're somewhere and to your left is north. Where on the Earth are you?
> Now, turn so north is to your back. Are you now somewere else?
Jackie, that has nothing to do with whether you're using an outside
reference to navigate. With a compass, you are.
> The only navigation system
> >that doesn't use an outside reference is an inertial navigation system,
> >and they can work quite well.
>
> Stevie, an inertial nav system uses the entire universe as its reference. If
> you don't understand that, you couldn't begin to understand that if the entire
> universe were just you and a baseball you couldn't throw the ball away from
> yourself.
Sophistry again? What if the entire universe existed as it does today,
but with nothing in it besides you and a baseball? You'd have no
problem throwing it away from yourself. And if you had an INS, you
could navigate from and to the baseball, with nothing else existing as a
reference.
It's so funny reading how backwards you are... A compass uses no
outside reference but "the entire universe" is your outside reference
with INS. What a moron.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
[...]
> Do you also understand that you "followed a compass course" for only part of
> the way -- the part where the increasing error of your position was offset by
> you're being waaaaaay out there relative to the distance you were traveling?
Good to see you admit that you can navigate and "get there" by following
a compass course.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Well if we dig under the various insults flying there is an interesting
> discussion about navigation buried here.
>
> There is a crucial difference between GPS/celestial and DR. GPS and
> celestial are not subject to cumulative error. While running on a DR plot
> your knowledge of your exact position worsens with time. You can plot your
> DR position as often as you like using compass, clock and speed - but it
> will still get less accurate as time passes. If you are reasonably
> sophisticated you can even plot the circle of possible position that
> contains your true position to some probability.
You can do the same thing with GPS. Only it doesn't change appreciably
over time.
> The standard practice when running a DR plot is to begin a new plot whenever
> you obtain an absolute position... The rationale being that an absolute
> position though having some inherent error is still better than the relative
> one of a DR plot.
Absolutely. And if you can get to your destination soon enough so that
the cumulative error doesn't exceed the margin of error you need to
reach your destination, you can "get there" solely by compass DR. That
is the point which Jackie "boy" doesn't quite understand.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> >Wonderful! You just described your entire "can't navigate by compass"
> >argument as sophistic and yourself as a sophist.
>
> I said no such thing. I did say *you* are changing the conversation again and
> again and again annd again *trying* to save your sorry intellectual butt.
Sure you did. You described it perfectly.
>
> We're making
> >progress.
>
> "We" are not. *you* STILL believe that trash about "following a compass
> course" will get you there and that the laws of physics don't apply to you.
You don't even understand the laws of physics enough to make that
judgment.
> >And with that, I'm off to the boat for a sail. I'll let you
> >know if it's possible to navigate by compass from practical experience
> >rather than your type of sophistic arguments.
>
> Stevie, *no one* (but you, it seems) has *ever* called the Theory of Relativity
> a "sophist arguement".
I'm not calling the theory of relativity sophistic. Your use of that
theory to make your point is sophistic.
> And *IF* you had *any* experience doing any distance at all in an overcast
> you'd know all that has been said, at least intuitively.
If you would actually try to navigate somewhere by compass, you'd see
that it's possible. But that might require you to actually think, so it
will probably never happen.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> How about when you trip and fall bashing in your compass with your GPS? I
> would suggest you should be able to get out another compass and another GPS
> and maybe one more after that. I think I would prefer to run out of
That's when the radio comes in handy.:)
> compasses before I run out of GPSs. And after I ran out of GPSs I would
> prefer A sextant to a compass.. This is of course all with an offshore
> perspective. If I was in sight of known land I am not sure I would worry a
> lot about losing either.
Until a fog rolls in. Then you'd need your compass just to know what
direction land was if there were no other cues. If you're not moving,
even GPS is of no help.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> JD Stewguts writes:
>
> >You are right that compass navigation has cumulative error. Which is why
> >you periodically take fixes on known locations!
> >
>
> Hey, JD? The discussion was about when you didn't have known locations
> available. Maybe you missed that. But even if you did, you *should* know that
> if you have known locations, you have no need at all for a compass. Duh.
Well, now I see your problem. You don't even know what your own
discussion is about. Lets go back to the start of your first message:
Jackie said:
> Let's say (for instance) you are in a boat (any kind of boat) 127.354 nm due
> east of New York City (that's out in the ocean with nothing around) in an
> overcast (that stays) wherein you can see nothing but your boat and the water.
> You are just sitting there.
[...]
Apparently, you *do* know exactly where you are and the point is to get
somewhere else (New York City is good I guess) navigating by DR with a
compass. Finding New York City by DR when you know you're 127.354 nm
due east of New York City is not a difficult task, and people have been
doing similar feats of skill for centuries. For you to claim it's
impossible is preposterous.
Steve
JAXAshby
>>Why,
>>because H-Lax has told us he hold a Private Pilot License
>
>No Jackwad, I hold a Commercial license with MEL SEL &SES ratings with
>instrument priviledges. No go pogo your partner. ...
Hey, H-Lax? *IF* you hold a Commercial with a Single, a Multi, and a Single
(sea), you also have a "Private" as well (which *you* would know *IF* you had a
Commercial).
Geesh! When will this dum dum stop lying through his teeth?
Say, H-Lax? You wanna tell us again how you became the "expert" in diesels you
are by "watching the engines vibrate" hour after hour after hour?
> ...You know nothing but spout
JAXAshby
>JAXAshby wrote:
>>
>> >My Compass experience:
>>
>> [snip long story, that ends up okay]
>>
>> James, you had more than a compass. You also had sounds, a submarine,
>maybe a
>> sense of which direction the sun was and a small area to get lost in.
>
>Sounds are of no help if you don't know where the source is, i.e., not
>an outside reference. Same thing with the sub. You would have
>absolutely no idea what direction the sub was going without your
>compass.
stevie, notice the other references he had, *and* used. A gps would be FAR
better under those conditions than a compass. But that wasn't the discussion,
was it? And you knew it, didn't you?
>
>> This thread started because an old codger from the USPS stated that
>calculating
>> a compass course (adjusted for estimated speed, estimated winds, estimated
>> currents, est everything else) "will get you there".
>
>And it will, depending on where he was talking about.
Let me refresh your (weaking?) memory. The old codger said he taught
calculation of a magnetic compass course -- to the individual degree -- as a
means of "getting there" to exclusion of all other references. This was a
truly ignorant thing to say because "following a compass course" -- even one
calculated to an individual degree -- won't "get you there" (for all kinds of
reasons mandated by the laws of physics, the laws of aerodynamics, the laws of
hydrodynamics, etc., etc., etc.). the old codger was an ignorant fool, and a
fool who expressed a desire and enjoyment in harrassing early teenage boys (who
have to take his class). Not to mention giving them information under the
guise of authority that might well get the kids killed.
>
>> Can I suggest you spring for a $95 gps for next time? It uses outside
>> references "to get you there". No hoodoo, no voodoo, no hokous, no pokous.
>
>There's more hokus pokus in a GPS than a compass.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Really??!? *You* prefer a compass to a gps?
What a fool. You should not be allowed to *ever* buy and/or have access to an
EPIRB. You might pull the trigger when the waves get to be two and a half feet
high.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
JAXAshby
>> Stevie, an inertial nav system uses the entire universe as its reference.
>If
>> you don't understand that, you couldn't begin to understand that if the
>entire
>> universe were just you and a baseball you couldn't throw the ball away from
>> yourself.
>
>Sophistry again? What if the entire universe existed as it does today,
>but with nothing in it besides you and a baseball? You'd have no
>problem throwing it away from yourself. And if you had an INS, you
>could navigate from and to the baseball, with nothing else existing as a
>reference.
stevie, again I say give it up. You have not a clue (nor a clew, either). Up
until yesterday you even heard of the "you and baseball" issue and today you
are an expert in it.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!
>
>It's so funny reading how backwards you are... A compass uses no
>outside reference but "the entire universe" is your outside reference
>with INS. What a moron.
Do you have *any* idea how an inertial system works? Any idea at all?
Didn't think so.
How about a compass? Do you have any idea what it tells you?
You do? So, why in hell do you think following a compass will "get you there"?
Yeah, sure.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
JAXAshby
stevie, you snipped off the part where the guy used outside references to help
get him home.
Geesh. When are you going to accept that a compass tells you nothing but which
*direction* is north. If tells you nothing at all about your position on the
planet. It can't.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
JAXAshby
>Jim Donohue wrote:
>>
>> Well if we dig under the various insults flying there is an interesting
>> discussion about navigation buried here.
>>
>> There is a crucial difference between GPS/celestial and DR. GPS and
>> celestial are not subject to cumulative error. While running on a DR plot
>> your knowledge of your exact position worsens with time. You can plot your
>> DR position as often as you like using compass, clock and speed - but it
>> will still get less accurate as time passes. If you are reasonably
>> sophisticated you can even plot the circle of possible position that
>> contains your true position to some probability.
>
>You can do the same thing with GPS. Only it doesn't change appreciably
>over time.
stevie, there IS a difference. A gps tells you *where you are*, while a
compass tells you no more than which way is north. BIG difference, if you think
about it for a moment.
>
>> The standard practice when running a DR plot is to begin a new plot
>whenever
>> you obtain an absolute position... The rationale being that an absolute
>> position though having some inherent error is still better than the
>relative
>> one of a DR plot.
>
>Absolutely. And if you can get to your destination soon enough so that
>the cumulative error doesn't exceed the margin of error you need to
>reach your destination, you can "get there" solely by compass DR. That
>is the point which Jackie "boy" doesn't quite understand.
What I understand is what mariners have known for centuries, physicists have
known is a law of physics for nearly ninety years and what the FAA has mandated
for seventy years, namely the "following a compass course" won't "get you
there". You *HAVE* to have outside references.
(stevie skates this issue even as he tacitly acknowledges it by telling us that
when sailing to Europe in an ovecast, hitting [literally] anywhere from Norway
to South Africa and then running down or up the coast(s) in visual contact with
shore is his definition of "getting there". Nevermind, that stevie has no idea
just how to avoid hitting the rocks on Newfoundland or Greenland or Iceland
first.)
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
JAXAshby
>judgment.
What do you mean me stevie? *You're* the one who didn't know of the "you and
baseball" issue until yesteray. *You* are the one who didn't know the
reference point of an inertial system. *you're* the one who thinks that
wandering around with your shoulder aimed towards the north will "get you
there" without any regard whatsoever to position.
>I'm not calling the theory of relativity sophistic. Your use of that
>theory to make your point is sophistic.
It's not sophist at all. It's been an accepted part of the laws of physics for
nearly ninety years and it accurately addresses the express issue here, namely
the absolute inability of anyone to know their position without outside
references. The fact that *you* had only barely heard of it before in no way
changes anything. In other words, that you don't know something doesn't make
it invalid. It just means you didn't know something. To continue to insist --
as you do -- that if you don't understand something that something doesn't
exist is specious.
>If you would actually try to navigate somewhere by compass, you'd see
>that it's possible. But that might require you to actually think, so it
>will probably never happen.
>
go back and read the posts, stevie. You'll notice that I have a FAA issued
pilot's license. You'll notice I mentioned what happened when I did use the
compass to the exclusion of other instruments. You'll notice I suggested you
go talk to some pilots (most of whom think nothing of flying several hundred
miles just for a pancake breakfast) and none of whom will "fly blind", i.e. use
just a compass to "try to get there".
JAXAshby
>>
>> How about when you trip and fall bashing in your compass with your GPS? I
>> would suggest you should be able to get out another compass and another GPS
>> and maybe one more after that. I think I would prefer to run out of
>
>That's when the radio comes in handy.:)
stevie saying here that when his gets himself stupidly lost, he will trigger
his EPIRB and have the coasties come and tell him where he is.
>
>> compasses before I run out of GPSs. And after I ran out of GPSs I would
>> prefer A sextant to a compass.. This is of course all with an offshore
>> perspective. If I was in sight of known land I am not sure I would worry a
>> lot about losing either.
>
>Until a fog rolls in. Then you'd need your compass just to know what
>direction land was if there were no other cues.
stevie says here that he is stupid enough run an unknown harbor entrance in a
fog because "he know which direction is north"
Yeah, sure
>... If you're not moving,
>even GPS is of no help.
WHAT?!?!!? stevie? Are you REALLY saying a gps doesn't work "in you're not
moving"?
Jesus H. KeyRiste! At least, go buy yourself a gps and read the manual! And
whatever you do, DON'T buy an EPIRB!
(Darwin would like you having an EPIRB.)
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
JAXAshby
of things nautical:
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> >Indeed, Lindbergh crossed the pond in 1927 and Bill Lear didn't release
> >the first commercial RDF until 1935.
> >
>
> You stupid shit.
High praise indeed, coming from a really unattractive guy who poses in a
Speedo bathing suit and publishes the photos on the Internet.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Do objects have to pay an inheritance tax?
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> >You don't even understand the laws of physics enough to make that
> >judgment.
>
> What do you mean me stevie? *You're* the one who didn't know of the "you and
> baseball" issue until yesteray. *You* are the one who didn't know the
> reference point of an inertial system. *you're* the one who thinks that
> wandering around with your shoulder aimed towards the north will "get you
> there" without any regard whatsoever to position.
>
I haven't seen Steve posing in a Speedo in a series of internet web page
photos.
You, on the other hand, have.
That makes *you* the idiot.
Who were you posting for, btw?
You are one ugly dude.
--
Harry Krause
------------
If speed scares you, try Windows
Michael J Porter
JAXAshby <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote:
=>>Wonderful! You just described your entire "can't navigate by compass"
=>>argument as sophistic and yourself as a sophist.
=>
=>I said no such thing. I did say *you* are changing the conversation again and
=>again and again annd again *trying* to save your sorry intellectual butt.
=>
=>We're making
=>>progress.
=>
=>"We" are not. *you* STILL believe that trash about "following a compass
=>course" will get you there and that the laws of physics don't apply to you.
I followed a compass course once (Imagine that). It got me pretty
close. Wrong side of the river, true, but close. So, is your
point (trivially) that wind, current, measurement error etc
increases the uncertainty of your current location if you don't
come across any fixed locations (markers, objects on land,
celestial, batteries for the GPS) when following a compass course?
Is that what they really teach in USPS classes or were you sleeping
during the part of class where they tell you that knowing about
where you are makes is much easier to determine which fixed object
you are looking at, and hence obtaining an accurate fix? Don't
bother responding with "what fixed objects"? You don't cross
oceans without knowing how to obtain such info (stars, stuff
drifting in the water, birds, smell, etc) I've never taken a
celestial fix before, but I would assume it is easier if you have
some idea where you are. This is even true for a GPS.
Mike
--
-
Mike Porter <mi...@udel.edu>
PGP Fingerprint: F4 AE E1 9F 67 F7 DA EA 2F D2 37 F3 99 ED D1 C2
Michael J Porter
JAXAshby <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote:
=>JD Stewguts writes:
=>
=>>You are right that compass navigation has cumulative error. Which is why
=>>you periodically take fixes on known locations!
=>>
=>
=>Hey, JD? The discussion was about when you didn't have known locations
=>available. Maybe you missed that. But even if you did, you *should* know that
=>if you have known locations, you have no need at all for a compass. Duh.
So, If I have a known location, and I want to go somewhere else,
and I know where that is, a compass won't help at all? Darn. I
have two compasses, too.
HLAviation
>(sea), you also have a "Private" as well (which *you* would know *IF* you had
>a
>Commercial).
>
No Jackfuck, I don't have a private. When I got my commercial, they took my
private and handed me my temporary Commercial airmans certificate. 6 weeks
after that I received my permanent one from OKC. Nowhere on that license does
it say private. I can still fly my plane privately since those operations are
under the pervue of a commercial, but I no longer hold a private.
So come on, what plane did you build and how long did it take you? What was
the tail number?
Your just a lying full of shit salesman. If GMDSS class wasn't so boring, I'd
just ignore you.
hkr...@capu.net
http://fathom.org/teemingmillions/jax.html
Someone with the appropriate software might repost the above-referenced page
to every newsgroup in the known universe.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Psst, your file is open
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Stevie streeeeeeeeeeeetchs th concept of reality -- BIG TIME -- with:
>
> >JAXAshby wrote:
> >>
> >> >My Compass experience:
> >>
> >> [snip long story, that ends up okay]
> >>
> >> James, you had more than a compass. You also had sounds, a submarine,
> >maybe a
> >> sense of which direction the sun was and a small area to get lost in.
> >
> >Sounds are of no help if you don't know where the source is, i.e., not
> >an outside reference. Same thing with the sub. You would have
> >absolutely no idea what direction the sub was going without your
> >compass.
>
> stevie, notice the other references he had, *and* used. A gps would be FAR
> better under those conditions than a compass. But that wasn't the discussion,
> was it? And you knew it, didn't you?
None of them helped. A GPS would be FAR better under almost any
conditions. But that wasn't the discussion, was it? And you knew it,
didn't you?
> >> Can I suggest you spring for a $95 gps for next time? It uses outside
> >> references "to get you there". No hoodoo, no voodoo, no hokous, no pokous.
> >
> >There's more hokus pokus in a GPS than a compass.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Really??!? *You* prefer a compass to a gps?
Hey Jackie "boy", you need a course in reading comprehension. Where did
I say I preferred a compass to a GPS?
> What a fool. You should not be allowed to *ever* buy and/or have access to an
> EPIRB. You might pull the trigger when the waves get to be two and a half feet
> high.
Good one! Took some real skill to think that one up, huh? Don Rickles
better watch out, Jamie is in the house!
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> HLAviation wrote:
>
> http://fathom.org/teemingmillions/jax.html
>
> Someone with the appropriate software might repost the above-referenced page
> to every newsgroup in the known universe.
It's simple to do with Linux.:)
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
> Geesh. When are you going to accept that a compass tells you nothing but which
> *direction* is north. If tells you nothing at all about your position on the
> planet. It can't.
Well, now that we can all see that Jackie doesn't even know what DR
navigation is, it's no wonder he says it's impossible.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> stevie continues on:
>
> >Jim Donohue wrote:
> >>
> >> Well if we dig under the various insults flying there is an interesting
> >> discussion about navigation buried here.
> >>
> >> There is a crucial difference between GPS/celestial and DR. GPS and
> >> celestial are not subject to cumulative error. While running on a DR plot
> >> your knowledge of your exact position worsens with time. You can plot your
> >> DR position as often as you like using compass, clock and speed - but it
> >> will still get less accurate as time passes. If you are reasonably
> >> sophisticated you can even plot the circle of possible position that
> >> contains your true position to some probability.
> >
> >You can do the same thing with GPS. Only it doesn't change appreciably
> >over time.
>
> stevie, there IS a difference. A gps tells you *where you are*, while a
> compass tells you no more than which way is north. BIG difference, if you think
> about it for a moment.
Of course there's a difference. But all you need to know is which way
is north in order to navigate with a watch and a log.
> >> The standard practice when running a DR plot is to begin a new plot
> >whenever
> >> you obtain an absolute position... The rationale being that an absolute
> >> position though having some inherent error is still better than the
> >relative
> >> one of a DR plot.
> >
> >Absolutely. And if you can get to your destination soon enough so that
> >the cumulative error doesn't exceed the margin of error you need to
> >reach your destination, you can "get there" solely by compass DR. That
> >is the point which Jackie "boy" doesn't quite understand.
>
> What I understand is what mariners have known for centuries, physicists have
> known is a law of physics for nearly ninety years and what the FAA has mandated
> for seventy years, namely the "following a compass course" won't "get you
> there". You *HAVE* to have outside references.
And if you have a compass, you *DO* have an outside reference. So your
requirements are fulfilled.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> >Jim Donohue wrote:
> >>
> >> How about when you trip and fall bashing in your compass with your GPS? I
> >> would suggest you should be able to get out another compass and another GPS
> >> and maybe one more after that. I think I would prefer to run out of
> >
> >That's when the radio comes in handy.:)
>
> stevie saying here that when his gets himself stupidly lost, he will trigger
> his EPIRB and have the coasties come and tell him where he is.
jackie saying that he *will* get himself stupidly lost because he
doesn't know how to use a compass.
> >> compasses before I run out of GPSs. And after I ran out of GPSs I would
> >> prefer A sextant to a compass.. This is of course all with an offshore
> >> perspective. If I was in sight of known land I am not sure I would worry a
> >> lot about losing either.
> >
> >Until a fog rolls in. Then you'd need your compass just to know what
> >direction land was if there were no other cues.
>
> stevie says here that he is stupid enough run an unknown harbor entrance in a
> fog because "he know which direction is north"
jackie says here that he is stupid.
>
> Yeah, sure
>
> >... If you're not moving,
> >even GPS is of no help.
>
> WHAT?!?!!? stevie? Are you REALLY saying a gps doesn't work "in you're not
> moving"?
jackie is saying that he is too stupid to quote properly and doesn't
know how to understand english. jackie doesn't know enough about gps to
realize that it doesn't give directional information if it's not
moving. At least not without a built in compass.
> Jesus H. KeyRiste! At least, go buy yourself a gps and read the manual! And
> whatever you do, DON'T buy an EPIRB!
jackie is saying that he's too stupid to know how to use a gps, and is
too stupid to buy an epirb.
> (Darwin would like you having an EPIRB.)
jackie is saying that he's too stupid to know what Darwin would like.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
[...]
> bother responding with "what fixed objects"? You don't cross
> oceans without knowing how to obtain such info (stars, stuff
> drifting in the water, birds, smell, etc) I've never taken a
> celestial fix before, but I would assume it is easier if you have
> some idea where you are. This is even true for a GPS.
You do have to know about where you are to take a celestial fix. And if
you have to navigate somewhere in a hurry and the GPS doesn't know about
where it is, it'll be of no help while it takes up to 20 minutes to
figure out where it is.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
Steven Shelikoff
>
> >You don't even understand the laws of physics enough to make that
> >judgment.
>
> What do you mean me stevie? *You're* the one who didn't know of the "you and
> baseball" issue until yesteray. *You* are the one who didn't know the
> reference point of an inertial system. *you're* the one who thinks that
> wandering around with your shoulder aimed towards the north will "get you
> there" without any regard whatsoever to position.
Uh, no. You're the one making the stupid and incorrect statements
above. But we've come to expect that of you.
> >I'm not calling the theory of relativity sophistic. Your use of that
> >theory to make your point is sophistic.
>
> It's not sophist at all. It's been an accepted part of the laws of physics for
> nearly ninety years and it accurately addresses the express issue here, namely
> the absolute inability of anyone to know their position without outside
> references. The fact that *you* had only barely heard of it before in no way
> changes anything. In other words, that you don't know something doesn't make
> it invalid. It just means you didn't know something. To continue to insist --
> as you do -- that if you don't understand something that something doesn't
> exist is specious.
And the fact that you still don't know that a compass uses an outside
reference is why you can't see the sophistry in your argument.
Steve
otnmbrd
JAXAshby wrote:
>
> Let me refresh your (weaking?) memory. The old codger said he taught
> calculation of a magnetic compass course -- to the individual degree -- as a
> means of "getting there" to exclusion of all other references. This was a
> truly ignorant thing to say because "following a compass course" -- even one
> calculated to an individual degree -- won't "get you there" (for all kinds of
> reasons mandated by the laws of physics, the laws of aerodynamics, the laws of
> hydrodynamics, etc., etc., etc.). the old codger was an ignorant fool, and a
> fool who expressed a desire and enjoyment in harrassing early teenage boys (who
> have to take his class). Not to mention giving them information under the
> guise of authority that might well get the kids killed.
>
Gentlemen: (except Jax)
You need to carefully read the above paragraph, and read it, as if you were
Jax, and had written it, ie, as a self centered, egotistical, littoral, purist.
Once you have set yourself into that frame of mind, pay extreme attention
to the phrases, "exclusion of all other references" and "to get you THERE", (there,
being a position, accurate to 0.000000000000000000000000001 ..... I realize, this
isn't pure, but I'm hoping even Jax, will understand I needed some economy of
space, and I do believe he mentioned 6 knots by speed log, which would improve my
odds, considerably.)
Now, if we assume, that in his reference to no references, he means that
from the starting point you stick your head in the sand, errrrr cowl, where in, the
only thing you can see is the compass, you can hear nothing, see nothing, and feel
nothing, then, there is no way you will arrive at the "position" he has chosen,
except by pure luck. He is absolutely correct.
The problem, gentlemen, is that with the exception of Jax, none of you is
anal enough to ever think of a compass problem, to that degree of purity, so
consequently, you start arguing with him and his point, in normal, every day terms,
with normal scenarios, as if he too, were normal .... hey... read his post, and ask
yourself if normal applies.
His biggest problem, is (on this subject ....... he has any number of
other .....) that once he realized, this purist approach to the instructors lesson,
at USPS, he immediately concluded, that the compass was, basically, a useless tool,
fit, only for all the rest of us dum-dums, and consequently, he never learned how
to use it ...... as is also obvious by his many post.
In closing, gentlemen, you are wasting you time ..... Jax, is only
capable of thinking along a very narrow, well defined track .... once he speaks,
his mind, such as it is, closes to any input, that doesn't mirror his own
thoughts.
ROFL, as always, Jax, you ARE entertaining, but in truth, you are also,
one-anal-halfwit.
signed
otnmbrd
James Medors
>
> go back and read the posts, stevie. You'll notice that I have a FAA
issued
> pilot's license. You'll notice I mentioned what happened when I did use
the
> compass to the exclusion of other instruments. You'll notice I suggested
you
> go talk to some pilots (most of whom think nothing of flying several
hundred
> miles just for a pancake breakfast) and none of whom will "fly blind",
i.e. use
> just a compass to "try to get there".
My dad's 1946, 7AC Aeronca Champion came new from the factory with a compass
as the only navigational equipment. It had no radio, no electrical system,
he had to prop start it. Tail No. N82655. That old Champ was still flying
the last time I seen it in 1993. In the 50's my dad made a lot of trips
back and forth between Charleston, SC and Waycross, GA with that old Champ
using nothing but a compass and looking out the window at landmarks. Dad
always made it there and back without getting lost. He also flew that Champ
just about anywhere else he wanted to.
As for having a Commercial without having a Private license, that is very
possible. When I was in Embry Riddle Aeronutical Institute in FL, my
room-mate and a lot of other students opted to skip the private and go
straight for the Commercial license. That was 1965 (36 yrs ago) it was
allowed back then and I would bet it is still allowed.
By the way, I am also a pilot but can't fly anymore because of my heart.
When I got my license over 30 years ago, GPS had not been invented yet.
They taught us to navigate by 3 methods; 1. Pilotage - That's looking out
the window for landmarks. 2. Dead Reckoning - That's using your compass and
watch. 3. Radio - VOR and ADF, mostly VOR. I am talking about VFR flying
here not IFR.
My dad never had the luxury of having a radio. I am so glad no one ever
told him a compass wouldn't work.
Steven Shelikoff
Jax isn't even capable of following his own argument, or sticking with a
consistent one. In some cases he says you have to start out with your
position unknown. In others, he says the starting position is known.
It makes a *big* difference which one you're talking about.
As for the precision of where "there" is in the term "get you there", no
navigation system can get you "there" if you make the target small
enough. So really, you could replace "compass course" with "GPS" in
that initial statement and be just as correct or incorrect.
> ROFL, as always, Jax, you ARE entertaining, but in truth, you are also,
> one-anal-halfwit.
Yes, he is both.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> >
> > go back and read the posts, stevie. You'll notice that I have a FAA
> issued
> > pilot's license. You'll notice I mentioned what happened when I did use
> the
> > compass to the exclusion of other instruments. You'll notice I suggested
> you
> > go talk to some pilots (most of whom think nothing of flying several
> hundred
> > miles just for a pancake breakfast) and none of whom will "fly blind",
> i.e. use
> > just a compass to "try to get there".
>
> My dad's 1946, 7AC Aeronca Champion came new from the factory with a compass
> as the only navigational equipment. It had no radio, no electrical system,
> he had to prop start it. Tail No. N82655. That old Champ was still flying
> the last time I seen it in 1993. In the 50's my dad made a lot of trips
> back and forth between Charleston, SC and Waycross, GA with that old Champ
> using nothing but a compass and looking out the window at landmarks. Dad
> always made it there and back without getting lost. He also flew that Champ
> just about anywhere else he wanted to.
Now you're bringing back memories.:) Back when I was in college, a
friend and I used to rent an Aeronca Champ that was set up for stunt
flying. Man did we have some fun in that thing! Better than *any*
roller coaster.
Steve
Russ Glindmeier
hkr...@capu.net wrote in message <3B54C6AD...@capu.net>...
>HLAviation wrote:
>
>http://fathom.org/teemingmillions/jax.html
>
>
>Someone with the appropriate software might repost the above-referenced
page
>to every newsgroup in the known universe.
>
Ya know, between the rather graphic mental image of Skipper's mother that
was offered last week, and now this, I'm pretty much creeped out right about
now. Why do I get the feeling that the two of them would really hit it off?
Russ
JAXAshby
>No Jackfuck,
then he admits he has been lying to us with:
>I don't have a private
because he doesn't know what a private is. H-Lax also once claimed to be a
cropduster, even though he insisted a low altitude turn downwind was a "myth"
(his word). No ag pilot who survives thinks that.
H-Lax also told us -- that by age 35 -- he lived "for years" on his long
distance cruising sailboat, AND worked in construction long enough to be senior
enough to be able to steal good quality plywood from a construction site, AND
he had enough hours at sea on merchant ships to learn all there is to know of
diesel engines by "watching them vibrate" for hours on end.
Shall we ask him if also knows how to butcher a hog and build titanium pressure
vessels and hew logs into houses and catch small animals using vines as traps
and find the Rainbow Room from Central Park West and address a baroness as
compared to a duchess and .....
Ask H-Lax anything.
JAXAshby
>conditions.
say stevie, jus two days ago you were saying a gps was worthless for helping
you (dummy that you are) navigate a narrow channel in a fog.
Are you chewing on peyote buttons or something?
hkr...@capu.net
>
> H-Lax -- ever the little boy -- writes:
>
> >No Jackfuck,
>
> then he admits he has been lying to us with:
>
> >I don't have a private
>
Doubt he poses in a Speedo, either.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Alarm clock: Something that makes people rise and whine
JAXAshby
It is a worthless tool "for getting there". If you'd ever tried to use one
"for getting there" you'd know that.
What's more *IF* you'd ever calculated a compass course and *then* tried to
follow it, you would soon notice that a boat does not go in the direction it is
pointed (it doesn't), so the precision of calculating -- to the degree -- of a
compass course it no more than an academic exercise.
so, otnmbrd, have you any idea *why* a boat doesn't go where it is pointed? If
you do not, we can only assume you never thought about why your compass course
didn't match your actual.
(btw, powerboaters seem the most likely to think a compass course works.
Sailboaters seem to be more conscious of where their boat is actually going.
They have to if they wish to make the marker on one tack rather than three)
JAXAshby
>position unknown
I never said any such thing. If you don't know where you are when you start,
you don't know where you are when you start.
What I did say, given a starting point, the worsening error of "following a
compass course" won't get you there. You see, a compass course assumes facts
that aren't facts (such as powerboats have no windage, powerboats feel no
current, winds never change, currents never change, wind strength and direction
are always knows precisely, current strength and direction is always known
precisely, powerboat make no side slip, etc.) Start with assumptions, then add
in unknown and unknowable changes, remove all outside references and you have
no way inhell to know where you are.
In the days before sextants, mariners ran the latitudes to "get there" (and a
very great many did not "get there"). Even in the days of sextants, 25% of all
commercial ships sank before they wore out (according to Royce).
JAXAshby
>navigation is, it's no wonder he says it's impossible.
>
>Steve
>
stevie, you're babbling again.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> >A GPS would be FAR better under almost any
> >conditions.
>
> say stevie, jus two days ago you were saying a gps was worthless for helping
> you (dummy that you are) navigate a narrow channel in a fog.
Say jackie, you hallucinating again? You've given up defending your own
argument that now you have to make up strawmen to argue against. That
not a good sign...
Steve
JAXAshby
>is north in order to navigate with a watch and a log.
No. Think about it. A compass tells you which way is north, a watch tells you
how much time has past, and log tells how much water has moved past your boat.
That's ALL.
You're telling us a.) water doesn't move, and b.) you have a way of adding --
on a continous basis -- the sum total of all instaneous changes in your boat's
heading and your boats speed (relative to the water), and c.) windage has no
effect on where you're going, and d.) your boat makes no side slippage (ever
been on a sailboat? If so, do you believe powerboats don't "crab" as they
move?).
Think about it.
JAXAshby
>above. But we've come to expect that of you.
you're babbling, again, stevie.
>And the fact that you still don't know that a compass uses an outside
>reference is why you can't see the sophistry in your argument.
so, steve, WHAT do you know when you know which way is north? Everywhere on
the planet is somewhere relative to north.