- double line bug & nautical miles
anton has identified the new growth glitch or glitz as the double line bug so i would like to see how far we can go without carriage returns & am thus
Nov 23, 2001 @ 20:06 - michael donner (michael donner <orc@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... I can variegate better than that - it says here the US nautical mile was defined in 1954 as exactly 6076.11549ft. Here in the UK we rejoice under a
Nov 23, 2001 @ 20:35 - Grant Hutchison ("Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>)
- Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: double line bug & nautical miles
grant where is that here of yours not just in the uk i hope for i can scarcely ignore a purported united states standard measurement for purposes of
Nov 23, 2001 @ 23:45 - m donner ("m donner" <maxivan82@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... In my Dent Dictionary of Measurement, which I had on my lap as I typed (and therefore out of your line of sight, clearly). It s a marvellous reference -
Nov 23, 2001 @ 23:59 - Grant Hutchison ("Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... trigonometric ... the target ... Is it just due west from your starting coords? I could do you that on a spherical earth, but I think it would be a tad
Nov 24, 2001 @ 00:06 - Grant Hutchison ("Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>)
- double line bug & nautical miles
happily i can report it now appears from here that everyone else at bp is looking just as gigantesque & doubly spacious as i myself am & it is not at all
Nov 24, 2001 @ 01:27 - michael donner (michael donner <orc@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... grant thats ok i would love to try it twice anyway but then what would be the basis of my more accurate second try & yes waorus is by tripartite
Nov 24, 2001 @ 01:58 - orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... in 1954 they were probably conceited enough to think they were splitting the atom but in 2001 all these 5 digits are given with real feasibility by the
Nov 24, 2001 @ 02:05 - orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... What latitude? And are we talking west-along-that-parallel or west-from- there-along-the-great-circle? ... splitting the ... the best ... Um. Well...
Nov 24, 2001 @ 02:26 - Grant Hutchison (Grant Hutchison <granthutchison@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... dyou mean you need to know the freakin latitude too well of course ahem it is n46d15m precisely to as many digits of zero as you like & i had thought
Nov 24, 2001 @ 03:41 - orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)
- Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... So it s west-along-that-parallel then? ... A loxodrome is a curve which always cuts the lines of longitude at the same angle (and is therefore straight on
Nov 24, 2001 @ 05:48 - Anton Sherwood (Anton Sherwood <bronto@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... man i sure would have thought so until you requestioned it but maybe i should & will recheck the legal text tomorrow ... oh no not more great circle
Nov 24, 2001 @ 05:52 - orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... Working to the nearest metre (the US nautical league comes out at a pleasing 5555m), I make 3nm US to be .0720365 degrees of longitude measured along the
Nov 24, 2001 @ 20:20 - Grant Hutchison ("Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
grant ... such fortunate coincidence only enhances your already sensible choice of the integral meter for the first try still pertinent for a followup try or
Nov 25, 2001 @ 03:27 - orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... place without any loss of authenticity by simply using the full 5 decimal places of the submillimetric nautical mile standard Your difficulty here is
Nov 25, 2001 @ 16:12 - Grant Hutchison ("Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
Just remembered that MathCAD offers 15-digit accuracy in its calculations. With that, it seems that the circumference of the GRS80 ellipsoid at N45d15m is:
Nov 25, 2001 @ 20:00 - Grant Hutchison ("Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
major salutes grantissimo for you have made my points for me & beyond & that is so purrdy in 6 digits of rigorous truth probably the first time any tripoint
Nov 25, 2001 @ 22:52 - orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... metric integrity you have found & can now also be discerned to have originated in logarithmic algorithmic integrity as well at 5555point55555etc meters
Nov 25, 2001 @ 23:15 - Grant Hutchison ("Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
grant you bet i think so because 1954 was also when they taught me in the usa that pi equals 22 sevenths which also involves distortion by the fourth digit &
Nov 25, 2001 @ 23:59 - orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)
- Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... What s a more accurate ratio? -- Anton Sherwood -- http://www.ogre.nu/ (online again, Nov.19)
Nov 26, 2001 @ 00:21 - Anton Sherwood (Anton Sherwood <bronto@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... fahrenheit to centigrade That one really is *exactly* 5/9ths: 100 centigrade spans 180 fahrenheit from freezing to boiling. That, and the spare 32F below
Nov 26, 2001 @ 00:17 - Grant Hutchison ("Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
i knew that hey cant you guys take a joke but the serious part & excuse me for being serious again is that the use of 5 ninths as a fraction was commonplace &
Nov 26, 2001 @ 00:27 - orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)
- Re: double line bug & nautical miles
... showstopper i imagined grant was making it out to be when he said aargh or whatever it was he said a few messages back I guess I thought it was something
Nov 26, 2001 @ 08:19 - Grant Hutchison ("Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>)