you may remember the attached mess from a few days ago as
message 16739
& tho i am still being entertained by the suspected java anomaly
i do at least have it completely rationalized now as a constant
with a value of 1point7922 & a reciprocal value of point5579
hahahaha
seriously
tho it is otherwise still completely baffling
hahaha
but in any case what this clarification has allowed me to do is to
proceed full steam ahead with my silly old browser here without
waiting for my new computer to arrive
so without further fanfare or drumroll
we can now at last not only taste but actually eat success here
for i can now report with confidence that the original 1701 arc of
nearly 13mile radius at denjpa actually struck or would have
struck the subsequent 1764 m&d west line not at modern
demdpa at all
as one of the diagrams in perry makes it seem
but in fact about a mile & 3quarters due west of modern demdpa
& that is evidently the approximate scale of the fudging that it was
necessary for m&d to do in order for their north line to meet both
their west line & the notional arc at modern demdpa
so this represents a first theoretical foreshortening of the original
arc
tho i dont believe either the 1701 or the m&d conception of the
arc was actually marked at all toward the western end
since that was the wild side of it in those days
rather i believe now it had to wait for graham in 1849 & 1850 to
complete the demarcation of the western end of the arc at all
& his actual freelance foreshortening of the arc at that time
to create the little depa jog while tying the demd arc to the depa
arc via the wedge arc in a single continuous compound curve
brought the arc intersection with the m&d west line a mile further
to the east than m&d had ever envisioned bringing it
so there you already have 2 distinct deliberate fudge jobs by
1850
representing nearly a 3mile recession eastward in all of that
localized part of the arc
& this quite apart from any of the lesser but more predictable
inexactitudes mentioned by sandy that fairly riddled all survey art
up to that time
& tho the arc was often shown on maps before 1850 as
feathering rather smoothly into the m&d north line at demdpa
it was probably never actually marked that way at all but merely
delineated & thought of in that way
somewhat vaguely from 1701
& more clearly from 1764 to 1850
when we have the first clear evidence of demarcation there
& i believe that settles that
leaving only the mysteries of the undermeasured denj arc
& the official ignorance of the depa arc feathering tripoint rock
near mile marker 11
remaining to resolve
so thanx again for your patience here
& i hope it was as well rewarded as my own
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia kallos
<aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> 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@y...> 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