ok
having slept on this i am pretty sure now that it is
just some sort of java anomaly due to the silly old
browser i am using
dohhh
even tho it seemed to be working fine just last week
in the diomede islands
but so anyway
rather than bang my head against this wall
i will wait til my new computer arrives next week to
redo all this properly
& in the meantime will gather coords for all the
additional pertinent arc points i can
so my analysis will be as exhaustive as possible when
i do complete it
so oops again
& thanx for your extra understanding if necessary
for happily i do seem to be getting somewhere with
this after all
--- aletheiak <
aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> er
> sheepishly
> something must be not quite right here
> hahahaha
> for i am getting equally bizarre readings on several
> different great
> circle distance calculators
> after several careful tries & retries
> indeed something on the order of a 23 mile arc
> radius
> yikes
> absurd
> where i was of course expecting 12 to 13 miles
> since thats what perry gives & thats how it measures
> on the
> paper topos too
>
> & i was so confident i could almost taste success
> oops
> but now cant even figure out why it has so weirdly
> eluded me
>
> not a clue
>
> quite baffling
>
> feels like i just got supersized into an alternate
> universe
> with no way of getting back to normal
>
> so if anyone can help
> please dive in & shrink me back down by all means
>
> for i seemed so close to proving something one way
> or the other
> hahaha
> but now i must leap this unexpected & totally
> irrational great
> circle distance computation inflation hurdle
>
> & the override is consistently around 78 percent
> hahahahaha
> but why
>
> yikes
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> >
> > digging this message 12321 out of the archive has
> also rattled
> > my brain enough to completely reconstruct the
> puzzle
> > & then also to recall that tho i cant put my hands
> on the really
> > authoritative 1934 article by perry
> > i can still recollect it fairly well
> > & have dug up the paper topos from which i can
> crib all the
> > necessary coords & then compute independently with
> a great
> > circle arc calculator exactly where on the mason &
> dixon west
> > line the original 1701 arc would have had to cross
> it
> > if not precisely at modern demdpa
> > aha
> > & what fun
> > all of which i ought to be able to do with the
> help of messages
> > 12156 & 614
> > but especially message 644 for the exact
> measurements
> >
> > so first the coords of the new castle county
> courthouse spire
> > aka the center of the original 1701 depa arc
> > as partially recovered in 1892
> > nad83 nlat 39d29m35s x wlong 75d33m52s
> >
> > & then the latitude of the mason&dixon line at
> demdpa
> > nad83 nlat 39d43m20s
> >
> > & next the radius of the 1701 depa arc
> > 67637 feet
> > yes i know almost 13 miles but thats what she
> really wrote
> >
> > & finally the coords of denjpa
> > at the opposite end of the original 1701 arc sweep
>
> > just as a double check
> > nad83 nlat 39d48m07s5 x wlong 75d24m53s
> >
> >
> > but anyway let me really go out on a limb & post
> this much first
> > & i will proceed with the great circle
> calculations after an
> > appropriate pause for fanfare & drumroll
> > & dinner
> > unless someone beats me to them
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> "acroorca2002"
> > <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > we know from pre1849 maps that the depa arc was
> originally
> > tangent to
> > > demd at modern demdpa
> > > or at least it appears to have been so
> > > &
> > > we understand that the wedge was created in 1849
> as a
> > prolongation of
> > > the demd arc
> > > which had a smaller radius than the depa arc as
> well as a
> > different
> > > center
> > > &
> > > we know that the western part of the depa arc
> was shaved
> > back at that
> > > time
> > > in order to feather these 2 or 3 slightly
> different arcs together
> > > into a single continuous curve from the delaware
> river to the
> > m&d
> > > tangent point
> > > etc
> > >
> > > but how was it possible that the original 1701
> depa arc & the
> > > original 1764 m&d north line from the demd
> tangent point
> > could both
> > > have struck the m&d west line at precisely the
> same point
> > > modern demdpa
> > >
> > > or at least how can they appear to have done so
> > >
> > > for it seems to me one or the other of these 2
> chance
> > intersections
> > > would have produced & become the definitive
> demdpa
> > > while the other would have had to miss the mark
> > >
> > > the intersections were independently conceived &
> generated
> > > one being supposedly 12 miles from the horse
> dike at new
> > castle
> > > & the other 15 miles south of the southernmost
> point of philly
> > as
> > > well as due north of the more famous tangent
> point
> > >
> > > neither position was derivative of the other
> > > yet both apparently agree
> > >
> > > so i am thinking
> > > m&d
> > > or at least someone prior to graham in 1849
> > > might already have done some fudging of the
> westernmost
> > end of the
> > > depa arc here just to make everything line up
> > >
> > > of course in 1849
> > > whatever slight previous fudging may also have
> been done
> > was
> > > completely obliterated by the much greater
> fudging produced
> > by graham
> > >
> > > so this is a question only for ghost pointing
> > > & perhaps only to be answered in some dusty
> archive if at all
> > >
> > > but it titillates my sense of & desire for
> precision
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com