ok i dont see how you can use your time better than by enjoying it
tho i do appreciate you are oriented toward work & productivity
even if our multipointing itself is oriented toward pure play
so i will try in future to spare you from as much otherwise useless
enjoyment as possible
& to begin with please be aware that our crazy bp search engine has
perked up considerably in recent days
so for any newcomer or oldtimer to be sure of exhausting any search
term
like menhus or latxus or whatever
before proceeding further
now requires fewer than a dozen pumps of our crazy search engine
but anyway about latxus
this as you probably know is at or near one of the 5 points where the
3nm & 9nm regimes meet
4 of which involve federal waters tripoints
previously
for the one convergency which produces no tripoint
namely in the dry tortugas
you have indicated how there is no overlapping or wraparound of the
smaller terminal arc by the larger one
but that the 2 regimes separate crisply at right angles to each other
& we have also previously found an apparent proof in the bible that a
1953 alfl compact prevents the terminal florida arc from wrapping
around the terminal alabama arc by specifying a peculiar but
evidently effective terminal alfl loxodrome
running 1 minute west of due south into the gulf of mexico to the
seaward limit of each respective state
& the problems of prusvin & prusvis are largely confined to figuring
out how to balance the effects of the 9nm regime of puerto rico with
those of the 3nm regime of the virgin islands
probably by first giving the 3nm full effect
& then wrapping the 9nm around it as much as possible
tho i could imagine giving them a proportional effect too
&or even cutting a clean meridional division between them
or some other solution
but i assume this remains undone & so is only putative in any case
& therefore maybe not so pressing or problematic as the others
the most problematic of the 5 points however appears to be latxus
not only because there doesnt seem to be any provision in place for
preventing texas from wrapping around louisiana
but also because the right bank of the sabine extends so much farther
out to sea than does the left bank that the arc overlap if any wont
be merely threefold but maybe about tenfold in its effect
& could potentially wrap texas waters way more than just an extra 6nm
around louisiana waters
& thus project latxus far to the east of the sabine pass
& since you have already shown a map that has the louisiana 3nm arcs
so nicely filled in all the way to the sabine pass
determining latxus now seems to me to be just a matter of figuring
out exactly what stops the swing of the easternmost texas 9nm arc
& exactly where it does so
& if you can figure that one out
then please do proceed by all means directly to prusvin & prusvis
to pin down the entire ensemble
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I didn't mean "challenge" in the sense that you must have taken
it. I meant it
> as a motivation and inspiration toward a positive accomplishment,
not a rivalry.
> In this sense, a challenge is good thing. If you had not brought
the need to my
> attention, I would not have known of it. Thanks.
>
> Now that you have directed me to message 338, however, I see that I
wasted a few
> hours of research replowing the same ground. It's not that I
didn't enjoy it,
> but I could have better used my time. Before I tackle LATXUS,
please tell me
> what is already known and the nature of the unknown. Thanks.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:58 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Finding MENHUS
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > A few days ago, after I had found LAMSUS, Mike challenged me to
> assist with two
> > other elusive off-shore US tripoints:
>
> well but first please understand
> you may well have felt challenged & indeed even been challenged by
> this puzzle
> which i did indeed deliberately offer to you
> but my intention was & is only to inspire & arouse not only your but
> all our collective multipointing instincts & values
>
> & there was & is actually no challenge coming from me
> express or implied
> to anyone
> & least of all toward you lowell
> whom i already know will eat such puzzles up like candy anyway
>
>
> so like rather than feeling put upon in any sense in future please
> just let me know any time you would like another such treat
>
> & thats really all there is to that
>
>
> but basically here at menhus
> tho you dont yet have a qed in this case
> because
> as you have demonstrated
> no final conclusion is yet fully possible
> you have at least carried the puzzle to the point where it has been
> stalled since message 338
> at probably 21327 feet 102 degrees east of the center of the
> breakwater
> a position which btw has been estimated at n42d58m36s x w70d36m40s
>
> & moreover you have even explained why it has been stalled there
>
> so yes that does help a bit
> & more than a bit
>
> in fact i would say it helps so much that we might now proceed to
> doublecheck my earlier assumptions & measurements & math
> & compute from them with some confidence at least a moderately
> probable & somewhat exact menhus conclusion
>
> to the nearest degminsecs anyway
>
> except i still havent found the means to perform that simple final
> leg of the computation
> hahaha
>
> but perhaps you or someone knows how
> & will be inspired
> to finish this job now
>
>
> > > & if you wouldnt mind hat tricking it by also nailing the
elusive
> > > latxus or menhus while you are at it
> > > well that would be absolutely trifecta or beyond
> >
> > I have given some attention to MENHUS, something about which I
knew
> nothing
> > previously. I find that the Supremes decreed a boundary in New
> Hampshire v.
> > Maine, 434 U.S. 1 (1977), based on a 1740 decree by George II. I
> know that Mike
> > already knows this.
> >
> > The trouble seems to be that the Supremes stopped their decreed
> boundary at an
> > interstate breakwater in the Isles of Shoals, which were divided
by
> George II,
> > and did not extend it beyond to the 3nm line to which Atlantic
> states may reach.
> > (The isles are close enough to the mainland that no federal waters
> intervene
> > between mainland and isles.) I think that the boundary stopped at
> the
> > breakwater because the royal decree of 1740 presented no
> delineation beyond the
> > harbor in the midst of the Isles of Shoals.
> >
> > New Hampshire, at least, has passed legislation specifying a
> boundary beyond the
> > breakwater. New Hampshire Revised Statutes, Title 1, Section 1:15
> says:
> > _________________
> >
> > ..and crossing the middle of the breakwater between Cedar Island
> [Maine] and
> > Star Island [New Hampshire] on a course perpendicular thereto, and
> extending on
> > the last-mentioned course to the line of mean low water; thence
102%
> A1 East
> > (true) to the outward limits of state jurisdiction...
> > _________________
> >
> > I suspect that the curious course "102%A1 East (true)" is an
> artifact of a poor
> > conversion of the text from some word processor format to HTML.
> Perhaps, it
> > means "102° East (true)."
> >
> > Both the Constitution and the Revised Statutes of Maine are silent
> on the
> > location of its boundaries. Until and unless Maine differs with
> New Hampshire
> > beyond the breakwater, the Supreme Court won't have anything to
say.
> >
> > I hope this helps a bit.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/