metric system newsgroup call for votes #1

[Paul Hirose]

I'm posting this to a couple newsgroups where I remember discussions
drifting off-topic into units of measure.

There's a vote going now on creating a newsgroup about the metric
system:

CHARTER: misc.metric-system

This newsgroup is for discussion about the International System of
Units (SI) or metric system, including its use in scientific,
technical, and consumer applications, its history and definition, and
its adoption in fields and regions where other units of measurement
are still prevalent (metrication). Included within its scope are
related global standards and conventions, for example metric product
specifications and consumer-product labelling practice.

END CHARTER.


I can't post the complete "call for votes" message because that's
against the rules. However, you can read it in the Googol archive:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1067921070.23662%40isc.org

Deadline for votes is 2003-11-25 23:59:59 UTC.

--

Paul Hirose >
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

[Cub Driver]

I wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dave Kearton]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole!
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put CUB in subject line)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com




Nor me with my 3 metre one.


Although the discussion should be as lively as on
alt.engineering.pocket.protectors



Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Yeff]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 05:25:07 -0500, Cub Driver wrote:

> I wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole!

I wouldn't touch it with a 3.048 meter pole...

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 05:33:40 -0500, Yeff > wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 05:25:07 -0500, Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole!
>
>I wouldn't touch it with a 3.048 meter pole...
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com

Well, either one would be an instant NBA star :-)

Al Minyard

[Tarver Engineering]

"Paul Hirose" > wrote in message
...
> I'm posting this to a couple newsgroups where I remember discussions
> drifting off-topic into units of measure.
>
> There's a vote going now on creating a newsgroup about the metric
> system:

The metric system is off topic for aviation newsgroups.

[John Mullen]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Hirose" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm posting this to a couple newsgroups where I remember discussions
> > drifting off-topic into units of measure.
> >
> > There's a vote going now on creating a newsgroup about the metric
> > system:
>
> The metric system is off topic for aviation newsgroups.
>

Far from it.

John

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul Hirose" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I'm posting this to a couple newsgroups where I remember discussions
> > > drifting off-topic into units of measure.
> > >
> > > There's a vote going now on creating a newsgroup about the metric
> > > system:
> >
> > The metric system is off topic for aviation newsgroups.

> Far from it.

Russians use metric units and Western aircraft use English units, the two
safety records speak for themselves.

[Goran Larsson]

In article >,
Tarver Engineering > wrote:

> Russians use metric units and Western aircraft use English units,

Are you *absolutely* sure about this?

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Goran Larsson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
> > Russians use metric units and Western aircraft use English units,
>
> Are you *absolutely* sure about this?

We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate operation
in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The air traffic
control system was only capable of producing altitude assignments in meters.

There are of course simple calculators availble for those clinging to the
metric slide rule reality.

[Goran Larsson]

In article >,
Tarver Engineering > wrote:

> We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate operation
> in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The air traffic
> control system was only capable of producing altitude assignments in meters.

Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
English units"?

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Goran Larsson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
> > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate
operation
> > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The air
traffic
> > control system was only capable of producing altitude assignments in
meters.
>
> Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
> English units"?

Of course not all do Goran, it is a joke.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Goran Larsson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
> > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate
operation
> > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The air
traffic
> > control system was only capable of producing altitude assignments in
meters.
>
> Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
> English units"?
>

Of course he is, he's always certain and always wrong.

Keith

[Tarver Engineering]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Goran Larsson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Tarver Engineering > wrote:
> >
> > > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate
operation
> > > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The air
traffic
> > > control system was only capable of producing altitude assignments in
meters.
> >
> > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
> > English units"?
> >
>
> Of course he is, he's always certain and always wrong.

My goodness, Willshaw posted something he didn't plagarize from a URL; real
progress. :)

[[email protected]]

"Dave Kearton" >
wrote:

>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole!
>>
>> all the best -- Dan Ford
>> email: (put CUB in subject line)
>>
>> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>
>
>
>
>Nor me with my 3 metre one.
>
>

Guess my 8 inch one isn't in the running then?...


--

-Gord.

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:22:47 GMT, (Goran Larsson)
wrote:

> In article >,
> Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
> > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate operation
> > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The air traffic
> > control system was only capable of producing altitude assignments in meters.
>
> Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
> English units"?

For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
so.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Dave Kearton]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Kearton" >
> wrote:
>> >
> >Nor me with my 3 metre one.
> >
> >
>
> Guess my 8 inch one isn't in the running then?...
>
>
> --
>
> -Gord.




Still impressive - unless you're talking about pitot tubes ......





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Mary Shafer wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:22:47 GMT, (Goran Larsson)
wrote:
>

>
>
>> In article >, Tarver Engineering
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate
>>> operation in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest
>>> change. The air traffic control system was only capable of
>>> producing altitude assignments in meters.
>>>
>> Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
English
>> units"?
>>
>
> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says so.
>

>
> Mary
>
>
Interestingly, to my knowledge the Swedish Air Force uses the metric
system (also for altitude). Swedish aircraft have participated in
several international military exercises in Europe, working alongside
European NATO units. According to an article that appeared in the Dutch
Air Force magazine ("Onze Luchtmacht"/ our Air Force) on Swedish Viggens
operating from Leeuwarden during such an exercise, for the Swedes
learning to adjust to NATO Air Traffic Control (and the use of English
units) was one of the most important goals for participating.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[Goran Larsson]

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:

> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
> so.

The Swedish airforce use meter for altitude and km/h for airspeed.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Jo Stoller]

Mary Shafer wrote:
>For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
>so.

Can you provide a quote?

[Marcus Andersson]

(Goran Larsson) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
> > For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
> > so.
>
> The Swedish airforce use meter for altitude and km/h for airspeed.

All Gripens can use either metres or feet for altitude and km/h or
knots for airspeed. Just push a button to select.
Some of the Viggens have gotten new instruments so they can do the
same.

I'm positively sure that the Swedish air force will switch to imperial
units in the near future. No point in using one system wthin Sweden
and another system when abroad.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:22:47 GMT, (Goran Larsson)
> wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Tarver Engineering > wrote:
> >
> > > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate
operation
> > > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The air
traffic
> > > control system was only capable of producing altitude assignments in
meters.
> >
> > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
> > English units"?
>
> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
> so.

And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth, they
work out real well for navigation.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Marcus Andersson" > wrote in message
om...
> (Goran Larsson) wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > Mary Shafer > wrote:
> >
> > > For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
> > > so.
> >
> > The Swedish airforce use meter for altitude and km/h for airspeed.
>
> All Gripens can use either metres or feet for altitude and km/h or
> knots for airspeed. Just push a button to select.
> Some of the Viggens have gotten new instruments so they can do the
> same.

That is a silly PC calculator.

> I'm positively sure that the Swedish air force will switch to imperial
> units in the near future. No point in using one system wthin Sweden
> and another system when abroad.

especially now that WGS-84 ie europe wide.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message ...

<snip of gord bragging about his dick>
> Still impressive - unless you're talking about pitot tubes ......

Do you even know what a pitot tube is, little freak?

I don't think we need to hear what you think of Gord's crank.

[Robert Briggs]

Yeff wrote:
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole!

I make that 6' 6" too short.

> I wouldn't touch it with a 3.048 meter pole...

Is "meter" a typo for "metre"?

If so, your pole is 1.9812 m too short.

[Robert Briggs]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> John Mullen wrote:
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > Paul Hirose wrote:

> > > > There's a vote going now on creating a newsgroup about the
> > > > metric system:
> > >
> > > The metric system is off topic for aviation newsgroups.
> >
> > Far from it.
>
> Russians use metric units and Western aircraft use English units,
> the two safety records speak for themselves.

That's an interesting notion in view of the origin of the term
"Gimli Glider" ...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > John Mullen wrote:
> > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > > Paul Hirose wrote:
>
> > > > > There's a vote going now on creating a newsgroup about the
> > > > > metric system:
> > > >
> > > > The metric system is off topic for aviation newsgroups.
> > >
> > > Far from it.
> >
> > Russians use metric units and Western aircraft use English units,
> > the two safety records speak for themselves.
>
> That's an interesting notion in view of the origin of the term
> "Gimli Glider" ...

Canadian socialists persueing a metric agenda made a change that added a
branch to the failure tree. Without that arbitrary change there was no
Gimli Glider.

[Goran Larsson]

In article >,
Marcus Andersson > wrote:

> All Gripens can use either metres or feet for altitude and km/h or
> knots for airspeed. Just push a button to select.

That feature is not available in all software editions, and the
backup instruments in 39A and 39B can only show proper SI units.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[[email protected]]

"Dave Kearton" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dave Kearton" >
>> wrote:
>>> >
>> >Nor me with my 3 metre one.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Guess my 8 inch one isn't in the running then?...
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>
>
>
>Still impressive - unless you're talking about pitot tubes ......
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Dave Kearton
>
Yes, of course, pitot tubes, what did you think?...

--

-Gord.

[Dave Kearton]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Kearton" > wrote in
> message ...
>
> <snip of gord bragging about his dick>
> > Still impressive - unless you're talking about pitot tubes ......
>
> Do you even know what a pitot tube is, little freak?
>
> I don't think we need to hear what you think of Gord's crank.
>
>


A bit sensitive John ....



....if it were anybody else, I'd put it down to pitot envy.




Lighten up bud, nobody is shooting at you.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Tarver Engineering]

"Goran Larsson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Marcus Andersson > wrote:
>
> > All Gripens can use either metres or feet for altitude and km/h or
> > knots for airspeed. Just push a button to select.
>
> That feature is not available in all software editions, and the
> backup instruments in 39A and 39B can only show proper SI units.

Oxymoron.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message ...
>
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Kearton" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >
> > <snip of gord bragging about his dick>
> > > Still impressive - unless you're talking about pitot tubes ......
> >
> > Do you even know what a pitot tube is, little freak?
> >
> > I don't think we need to hear what you think of Gord's crank.
> >
> >
>
>
> A bit sensitive John ....

I intended it to be funny, you should relax.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
> > > English units"?
> >
> > For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
> > so.
>
> As far as I know, that is not true. The preferred ICAO units
> are SI, but it allows countries to choose a set of non-SI units.
> The FAA requires 'English' units for speed and altitude.

Dude, nautical miles are a measurment system based on the Earth; as such
English units are units consistent with lattitude and longitude.

> As the "Metric Conversion Act of 1975" requires US
> government agencies to use SI units (with a huge loophole
> stating that conversion does not have to been done where
> it is impractical) and for all government procurement, this
> position of the FAA is something of an anomaly, but of
> course the transition would be very difficult...

Carter's little bull**** got flushed by House Government Oversite and Reform
in 1996. (Klinger Chair)

[[email protected]]

"Dave Kearton" wrote:

>...if it were anybody else, I'd put it down to pitot envy.
>

"Pitot envy". Good one Dave.. (just cracks me up...)



:) :)
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

(Marcus Andersson) wrote:

(Goran Larsson) wrote in message >...
>> In article >,
>> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>>
>> > For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
>> > so.
>>
>> The Swedish airforce use meter for altitude and km/h for airspeed.
>
>All Gripens can use either metres or feet for altitude and km/h or
>knots for airspeed. Just push a button to select.
>Some of the Viggens have gotten new instruments so they can do the
>same.
>
>I'm positively sure that the Swedish air force will switch to imperial
>units in the near future. No point in using one system wthin Sweden
>and another system when abroad.

Good move imo...although I'm from a country that espouses metric
(and in most cases I like it) I think that for this one parameter
(altitude) we should all be on the same page. Just too damned
dangerous to be otherwise. (IMO).
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
>
>> > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
>> > English units"?
>>
>> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
>> so.
>
>As far as I know, that is not true. The preferred ICAO units
>are SI, but it allows countries to choose a set of non-SI units.
>The FAA requires 'English' units for speed and altitude.
>

Keep in mind that some time ago Mary also asserted in no
uncertain terms that both the FAA and the NSTB did not use Pilot
Error as a reason for any aircraft accident.

Incidentally, Tony Kern has a new book out. Here's my order
confirmation:

Shipping estimate for these items: November 3, 2003 1
"Controlling Pilot Error: Culture, Environment, and CRM (Crew
Resource Management)"
Tony Kern;Paperback; $11.00

He's a terrific writer, his article (now a book apparently) known
as "Darker Shades of Blue" was a great read about the B-52 prang
at Fairchild AFB a few years ago.



--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Robert Briggs > wrote:

>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> John Mullen wrote:
>> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> > > Paul Hirose wrote:
>
>> > > > There's a vote going now on creating a newsgroup about the
>> > > > metric system:
>> > >
>> > > The metric system is off topic for aviation newsgroups.
>> >
>> > Far from it.
>>
>> Russians use metric units and Western aircraft use English units,
>> the two safety records speak for themselves.
>
>That's an interesting notion in view of the origin of the term
>"Gimli Glider" ...

....and the 'Mars lander' was it?...
--

-Gord.

[Robb McLeod]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth, they
>work out real well for navigation.

That might have been true at one time but the Imperial system is now
entirely defined in terms of Metric units.

E.g. One inch is exactly 2.54 mm, etc.

This was changed over in 1958, previously the inch being 25.40000508
mm.

Similarly the nautical mile is now defined as exactly 1852 m.
Previous to the switchover it was 1853.184 m.

:-P

--
Robb McLeod )
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops.
On my desk I have a work station...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robb McLeod" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth,
they
> >work out real well for navigation.
>
> That might have been true at one time but the Imperial system is now
> entirely defined in terms of Metric units.

I fear you miss the entire point, nautical miles agree with latitude and
longitude.

<snip of irrelevence>

[Robb McLeod]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:52:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Robb McLeod" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth,
>they
>> >work out real well for navigation.
>>
>> That might have been true at one time but the Imperial system is now
>> entirely defined in terms of Metric units.
>
>I fear you miss the entire point, nautical miles agree with latitude and
>longitude.
>
><snip of irrelevence>

But the Earth isn't perfect sphere, nor is an arc minute the same in
a plane as a submarine. The natical mile was standardized to metric
because it was inconsistant depending on where you stood on the globe.

--
Robb McLeod )
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops.
On my desk I have a work station...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robb McLeod" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:52:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Robb McLeod" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth,
> >they
> >> >work out real well for navigation.
> >>
> >> That might have been true at one time but the Imperial system is now
> >> entirely defined in terms of Metric units.
> >
> >I fear you miss the entire point, nautical miles agree with latitude and
> >longitude.
> >
> ><snip of irrelevence>
>
> But the Earth isn't perfect sphere, nor is an arc minute the same in
> a plane as a submarine. The natical mile was standardized to metric
> because it was inconsistant depending on where you stood on the globe.

The nautical mile works fine inside the WGS-84 oblate speroid earth model.
Using meters is inapropriate for earth navigation.

Remulac is the only place meters make sense for navigation. :)

[Regnirps]

Robb McLeod wrote:

<< >And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth, they
>work out real well for navigation.

That might have been true at one time but the Imperial system is now
entirely defined in terms of Metric units. >>

In Britain? I don't think we use Imperial in the U.S. though some of the units
are the same.

-- Charlie Springer

[Gene Nygaard]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:22:47 GMT, (Goran Larsson)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>> >
>> > > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate
>operation
>> > > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The air
>traffic
>> > > control system was only capable of producing altitude assignments in
>meters.
>> >
>> > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
>> > English units"?
>>
>> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
>> so.
>
>And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth, they
>work out real well for navigation.

Not when your aviation charts are drawn to a metric scale.

You can use an ordinary ruler, not some expensive special purpose
plotter, on a sectional chart at 2 mm:1 km or a regional chart at 1
mm: 1 km.

Of course, the meter is also based on the Earth, like the nautical
mile and unlike the foot or the statute mile. Furthermore, a
centigrade or centigrad is to a kilometer as a minute of arc is to a
nautical mile. The grad is a non-SI unit of angle, but most
scientific calculators including the one which comes with Windows,
will do all the trig functions you'd need for navigation in those
units.

Of course, the relationship of either a nautical mile or a meter to
the Earth is only approximate. We don't have a perfectly spherical
Earth. If we did, or if they were based on the same midrange values,
we'd have 1 km = 0.54 nmi exactly, i.e. (1 km) (1 grad/100 km) (0.9
deg/grad) (60 nmi/deg) = 0.54 nmi.

--
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
"It's not the things you don't know
what gets you into trouble.

"It's the things you do know
that just ain't so."
Will Rogers

[Gene Nygaard]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:29:11 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul Hirose" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm posting this to a couple newsgroups where I remember discussions
>> drifting off-topic into units of measure.
>>
>> There's a vote going now on creating a newsgroup about the metric
>> system:
>
>The metric system is off topic for aviation newsgroups.

Certainly not.

Even if the new newsgroup was formed, we'll still have to keep posting
about it here to keep John Tarver straight.

I'm surprised you aren't pushing hard to get people to vote for this
new group.



Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:22:47 GMT, (Goran Larsson)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Tarver Engineering > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate
> >operation
> >> > > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The air
> >traffic
> >> > > control system was only capable of producing altitude assignments
in
> >meters.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
> >> > English units"?
> >>
> >> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
> >> so.
> >
> >And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth,
they
> >work out real well for navigation.
>
> Not when your aviation charts are drawn to a metric scale.

How many meters are there between seconds of arc at the Equator?

He he ...

[Gene Nygaard]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:47:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:22:47 GMT, (Goran Larsson)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate
>> >operation
>> >> > > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The air
>> >traffic
>> >> > > control system was only capable of producing altitude assignments
>in
>> >meters.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
>> >> > English units"?
>> >>
>> >> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
>> >> so.
>> >
>> >And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth,
>they
>> >work out real well for navigation.
>>
>> Not when your aviation charts are drawn to a metric scale.
>
>How many meters are there between seconds of arc at the Equator?
>
>He he ...
>

That's nothing but a red herring, intended to draw attraction away
from the fact that the aeronautical charts use metric scales. More on
this below, more particularly dealing with military aviation than what
I mentioned last time.

Your one second of arc along the equator is 0.016670 nmi. Not very
handy units for those short distances.

Gentlemen of the jury, Chicolini here may look like an idiot,
and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: He
really is an idiot.
Groucho Marx

One degree of arc on the Equator is 60.11 nmi.

Neither of them is particularly handy for calculations of precise
distances.

However, one degree of arc going from the Equator along a meridian,
using the normal geodetic latitudes, is only 59.70 nmi. That
unspherical Earth always throws a monkey wrench into these
calculations.

One milligrad of arc on the Equator is 0.10019 km.

One grad of arc on the Equator is 100.19 km.

Guess the kilometers are much easier, if you measure your angles in
those units.

One second of arc on the Equator is 30.92 m.

One degree of arc on the Equator is 111.3 km.

In this case, going from seconds to degrees is the same difficulty
whether you use nautical miles or meters, except that using nautical
miles you don't have the scaling that the metric prefixes give you,
for expressing the results in more reasonable numbers. There are no
generally used multiples and submultiples of a nautical mile. Sure,
some of the cable lengths were, but others were not, but they aren't
generally used. There aren't even a whole number of feet in a
nautical mile.

So let's get back to those charts.

When I was in the U.S. Army 30 years ago, our maps did have latitude
and longitude in grads as well as degrees. I'd bet that they still do
today.

However, more importantly, those same maps had grids lines every
kilometer, based on the UTM coodinate system. You can count squares
to get distance in kilometers in a N-S or E-W direction.

Now, with regard to military aviation. When the ground troops call in
for air support, they give their location and the enemy's location in
terms of those metric coordinates on that UTM grid.

Now if I'm a ground troop, I damn sure hope that the aviators are
using the same or similar maps, with a grid in kilometers and UTM
coordinates, so that they can find us based on the numbers we called
in.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:47:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:22:47 GMT, (Goran Larsson)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Tarver Engineering > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate
operation
> >> >> > > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The
air traffic
> >> >> > > control system was only capable of producing altitude
assignments in meters.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
> >> >> > English units"?
> >> >>
> >> >> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
> >> >> so.
> >> >
> >> >And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth,
they
> >> >work out real well for navigation.
> >>
> >> Not when your aviation charts are drawn to a metric scale.
> >
> >How many meters are there between seconds of arc at the Equator?
> >
> >He he ...
> >
>
> That's nothing but a red herring, intended to draw attraction away
> from the fact that the aeronautical charts use metric scales. More on
> this below, more particularly dealing with military aviation than what
> I mentioned last time.

Oh contrair, the entire rationalization for using base ten measurement
systems is their ease of use, be it making change, or work equations for
electromagnetic energy. In the case of Earth Navigation, and the
application of the WGS-84 oblate spheroid Earth model, the Nautical Mile
provides ease of use. Latitude and Longitude are laid out based on the
Nautical Mile and the lmeasure was in fact created specificly to address
Earth Surveying and property issues.

> Your one second of arc along the equator is 0.016670 nmi. Not very
> handy units for those short distances.

So then, a minute of arc is close to one. :)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:29:11 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Hirose" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I'm posting this to a couple newsgroups where I remember discussions
> >> drifting off-topic into units of measure.
> >>
> >> There's a vote going now on creating a newsgroup about the metric
> >> system:
> >
> >The metric system is off topic for aviation newsgroups.
>
> Certainly not.
>
> Even if the new newsgroup was formed, we'll still have to keep posting
> about it here to keep John Tarver straight.
>
> I'm surprised you aren't pushing hard to get people to vote for this
> new group.

I have already done my part, through Congressman Klinger, to kill off
communisms units of measure, in the public square.

[Gene Nygaard]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:50:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:47:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:22:47 GMT, (Goran Larsson)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> > Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for Corporate
>operation
>> >> >> > > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The
>air traffic
>> >> >> > > control system was only capable of producing altitude
>assignments in meters.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft use
>> >> >> > English units"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO says
>> >> >> so.
>> >> >
>> >> >And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the earth,
>they
>> >> >work out real well for navigation.
>> >>
>> >> Not when your aviation charts are drawn to a metric scale.
>> >
>> >How many meters are there between seconds of arc at the Equator?
>> >
>> >He he ...
>> >
>>
>> That's nothing but a red herring, intended to draw attraction away
>> from the fact that the aeronautical charts use metric scales. More on
>> this below, more particularly dealing with military aviation than what
>> I mentioned last time.
>
>Oh contrair,

Of course it was a red herring.

Anybody who notices that not only did you fail to address the metric
charts issue of my earlier message, but you have also now failed to
address the metric grid squares and UTM coordinates issue in military
aviation, can figure that out pretty darned easily.

Good grief! You've got to stop assuming that your own intelligence is
typical of this newsgroup. Most people (with a couple of notable
exceptions of course) following this thread are smarter than you are.

> the entire rationalization for using base ten measurement
>systems is their ease of use, be it making change, or work equations for
>electromagnetic energy. In the case of Earth Navigation, and the
>application of the WGS-84 oblate spheroid Earth model, the Nautical Mile

All the parameters for distances in WGS-84 are given in meters.
Nautical miles don't provide any advantage whatsoever in the type of
precision measurements for which this ellipsoid is used.

http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/gps_survey/chap2/214.htm
http://home.online.no/~sigurdhu/Grid_1deg.htm
http://www.wgs84.com/

Example: One primary parameter is semimajor axis a = 6.378 137 Mm.
How many nautical miles is that?

Another primary parameter is Geocentric gravitational constant
(Mass of earth’s atmosphere included) GM = 398600.5 km^3 s^-2
What is that in nautical miles cubed per second squared?

There is no way whatsoever in which nautical miles provide any
advantage over meters for use with WGS-84.

>provides ease of use. Latitude and Longitude are laid out based on the
>Nautical Mile and the lmeasure was in fact created specificly to address
>Earth Surveying and property issues.

Surveyors don't use nautical miles. They normally use meters;
sometimes in the U.S. they use the otherwise obsolete definition of a
foot as 1200/3937 m. No property disputes are ever determined on the
basis of nautical miles.

>> Your one second of arc along the equator is 0.016670 nmi. Not very
>> handy units for those short distances.
>
>So then, a minute of arc is close to one. :)

Doesn't make it any easier if you are dealing with seconds of arc, the
units you yourself specified in your earlier message. Or with degrees
of arc; I can more easily multiply by 111 in my head than by 60.

How many minutes of arc is it from the airport at Antwerp, Belgium to
the airport at Christchurch, New Zealand, to the nearest minute of
arc? Do you ever see such distances expressed in minutes of arc?

How many nautical miles at sea level is it from the airport at
Antwerp, Belgium to the airport at Christchurch, New Zealand, to the
nearest nautical mile?

How much difference is there between those two numbers?

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:50:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:47:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:22:47 GMT, (Goran
Larsson)
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> > Tarver Engineering > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for
Corporate operation
> >> >> >> > > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The
air traffic
> >> >> >> > > control system was only capable of producing altitude
assignments in meters.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft
use
> >> >> >> > English units"?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO
says
> >> >> >> so.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the
earth, they
> >> >> >work out real well for navigation.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not when your aviation charts are drawn to a metric scale.
> >> >
> >> >How many meters are there between seconds of arc at the Equator?
> >> >
> >> >He he ...
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's nothing but a red herring, intended to draw attraction away
> >> from the fact that the aeronautical charts use metric scales. More on
> >> this below, more particularly dealing with military aviation than what
> >> I mentioned last time.
> >
> >Oh contrair,
>
> Of course it was a red herring.

Just as it would be foolish to make electromagnetics calculations in feet,
it is silly to insist that meters are a realistic replacement for nautical
miles in navigation.

> Anybody who notices that not only did you fail to address the metric
> charts issue of my earlier message, but you have also now failed to
> address the metric grid squares and UTM coordinates issue in military
> aviation, can figure that out pretty darned easily.

We have had a series of experianced pilots here at ram indicate that the
English system is the one that works for navigation.

> Good grief! You've got to stop assuming that your own intelligence is
> typical of this newsgroup. Most people (with a couple of notable
> exceptions of course) following this thread are smarter than you are.

That would be statistically extreemly unlikey.

> > the entire rationalization for using base ten measurement
> >systems is their ease of use, be it making change, or work equations for
> >electromagnetic energy. In the case of Earth Navigation, and the
> >application of the WGS-84 oblate spheroid Earth model, the Nautical Mile
>
> All the parameters for distances in WGS-84 are given in meters.
> Nautical miles don't provide any advantage whatsoever in the type of
> precision measurements for which this ellipsoid is used.

Except in a prattical sense.

> http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/gps_survey/chap2/214.htm
> http://home.online.no/~sigurdhu/Grid_1deg.htm
> http://www.wgs84.com/
>
> Example: One primary parameter is semimajor axis a = 6.378 137 Mm.
> How many nautical miles is that?

How many meters between minutes at the equator?

One is a better number.

[Gene Nygaard]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:48:53 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:50:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:47:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:58:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:22:47 GMT, (Goran
>Larsson)
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> >> > Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > We sold a good number of metric altitude repeaters for
>Corporate operation
>> >> >> >> > > in Eastern European airspace prior to the latest change. The
>air traffic
>> >> >> >> > > control system was only capable of producing altitude
>assignments in meters.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Yes, but are your *absolutely* sure that all "Western aircraft
>use
>> >> >> >> > English units"?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> For altitude and airspeed, they do. I'm absolutely sure. ICAO
>says
>> >> >> >> so.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And since nautical miles are a measurement system based on the
>earth, they
>> >> >> >work out real well for navigation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not when your aviation charts are drawn to a metric scale.
>> >> >
>> >> >How many meters are there between seconds of arc at the Equator?
>> >> >
>> >> >He he ...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That's nothing but a red herring, intended to draw attraction away
>> >> from the fact that the aeronautical charts use metric scales. More on
>> >> this below, more particularly dealing with military aviation than what
>> >> I mentioned last time.
>> >
>> >Oh contrair,
>>
>> Of course it was a red herring.
>
>Just as it would be foolish to make electromagnetics calculations in feet,
>it is silly to insist that meters are a realistic replacement for nautical
>miles in navigation.
>
>> Anybody who notices that not only did you fail to address the metric
>> charts issue of my earlier message, but you have also now failed to
>> address the metric grid squares and UTM coordinates issue in military
>> aviation, can figure that out pretty darned easily.

You still haven't pulled the wool over anyone's eyes. We can still
see that you are still avoiding the points I raised.
>
>We have had a series of experianced pilots here at ram indicate that the
>English system is the one that works for navigation.
>
>> Good grief! You've got to stop assuming that your own intelligence is
>> typical of this newsgroup. Most people (with a couple of notable
>> exceptions of course) following this thread are smarter than you are.
>
>That would be statistically extreemly unlikey.
>
>> > the entire rationalization for using base ten measurement
>> >systems is their ease of use, be it making change, or work equations for
>> >electromagnetic energy. In the case of Earth Navigation, and the
>> >application of the WGS-84 oblate spheroid Earth model, the Nautical Mile
>>
>> All the parameters for distances in WGS-84 are given in meters.
>> Nautical miles don't provide any advantage whatsoever in the type of
>> precision measurements for which this ellipsoid is used.
>
>Except in a prattical sense.
>
>> http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/gps_survey/chap2/214.htm
>> http://home.online.no/~sigurdhu/Grid_1deg.htm
>> http://www.wgs84.com/
>>
>> Example: One primary parameter is semimajor axis a = 6.378 137 Mm.
>> How many nautical miles is that?
>
>How many meters between minutes at the equator?

Congratulations! You got the right angle this time.
>
>One is a better number.
>
It doesn't cost you any more to pay attention. That "one" is only a
very rough approximation. It isn't of any importance whatsoever in
WGS-84.

Like I told you before, at sea level along the Equator, 1 arcmin =
1.0018 nmi (of course, you had to calculate that from the figures I
gave for seconds or degrees of arc).

At 5000 m elevation along the Equator, 1 arcmin = 1.0026 nmi

Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the international
nautical mile. For them, it would be something like 1.0020 nmi at
5000 m.

Across the Equator going N-S, 1 arcmin is less than 0.9950 nmi using
the normal geodetic latitude used for location of airports and the
like, even though it is greater than 1 nmi using geocentric latitude.
(Years ago when I had programmed a calculator to do elliptic integrals
using geodetic latitude, I would have given you a more precise figure
for 0°0'30" S to 0°0'30" N, but I'm not about to relearn how to do
than and go through the calculations without that programmed in.)

So your "one" serves no useful purpose in the precise measurements for
which WGS-84 is designed. You don't need WGS-84 if you are using 1
nmi = 1 minute of arc.

Furthermore, as I pointed out before, "one" isn't even in the ballpark
if you are talking about seconds of arc as you did earlier, nor if you
are talking about degrees.

Go read about why WGS-84 was adopted in aviation.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Pat Norton]

Gene Nygaard wrote:
>Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
>international nautical mile.

It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British regional
definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was rounded
off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated (modern
British laws are metric).

However, that definition is not actually used. British air law (Air
Navigation Order) and sea laws mandate the international definition of
1852 m.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message

,snip>
> >How many meters between minutes at the equator?
>
> Congratulations! You got the right angle this time.

But you still don't get it Nygaard.

Consider for a moment that your SI comittee of technocrats ignore all
information that disagrees with their own predetermined conclusion, as is
the nature of the technocrat. Also consider that the group intellegence of
any committee is limited to the least intellegent member of any comittee.
When we add in the fact that the technocratic thought process is best
understood by the clueless, the only thing to do is laugh at your ignorance.

[redc1c4]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

(snipage occurs)

> Consider for a moment that your SI comittee of technocrats ignore all
> information that disagrees with their own predetermined conclusion, as is
> the nature of the technocrat. Also consider that the group intellegence of
> any committee is limited to the least intellegent member of any comittee.
> When we add in the fact that the technocratic thought process is best
> understood by the clueless, the only thing to do is laugh at your ignorance.

this is a perfect description of the process that creates your posts.

redc1c4,
thanks for the unintended humor......... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Gene Nygaard]

On 12 Nov 2003 13:02:14 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

>Gene Nygaard wrote:
>>Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
>>international nautical mile.
>
>It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British regional
>definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was rounded
>off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated (modern
>British laws are metric).

If that was in fact a redefinition, it is one of the silliest things
I've ever heard of. It would have been better to retain the obsolete
6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition of this unit at a
time when it is no longer supposed to be used (not being in the list
of exceptions to the metrication laws), one nobody had used before,
which differs from what everyone else in the world uses.

Furthermore, if that is in fact a redefinition as 1853 m, since the
same regulation defines the knot as 0.51477 m/s, that must mean that
the U.K. has redefined the hour. Weird people, using an hour defined
as 3599 34277/51477 seconds!
The Units of Measurement Regulation 1995, Statutory Instrument 1995
No. 1804, http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951804_en_1.htm#end

Note that

1 kt = 0.51477 m/s => 1 nmi = 1853.172 m
6080 ft = 1853.184 m

6080 ft/h = 0.51477777... m/s
1853 m/h = 0.51472222... m/s
1852 m/h = 0.51444444... m/s

>However, that definition is not actually used. British air law (Air
>Navigation Order) and sea laws mandate the international definition of
>1852 m.

How does that fit in with

2) Nothing in these Regulations shall apply in relation to any of the
uses of relevant imperial units which are permitted by Article 1(b) of
the Units of Measurement Directive, that is to say--
(a) the use of the mile, yard, foot or inch for road traffic signs,
distance and speed measurement;
(b) the use of the pint for dispensing draught beer and cider;
(c) the use of the pint for milk in returnable containers;
(d) the use of the acre for land registration; and
(e) the use of the troy ounce for transactions in precious metals.


Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Nov 2003 13:02:14 -0800, (Pat Norton)
> wrote:
>
> >Gene Nygaard wrote:
> >>Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
> >>international nautical mile.
> >
> >It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British regional
> >definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was rounded
> >off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated (modern
> >British laws are metric).
>
> If that was in fact a redefinition, it is one of the silliest things
> I've ever heard of. It would have been better to retain the obsolete
> 6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition

Yes, as *any* redifinition of the units of earth navigation is silly.

[Gene Nygaard]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:56:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
>> On 12 Nov 2003 13:02:14 -0800, (Pat Norton)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Gene Nygaard wrote:
>> >>Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
>> >>international nautical mile.
>> >
>> >It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British regional
>> >definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was rounded
>> >off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated (modern
>> >British laws are metric).
>>
>> If that was in fact a redefinition, it is one of the silliest things
>> I've ever heard of. It would have been better to retain the obsolete
>> 6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition
>
>Yes, as *any* redifinition of the units of earth navigation is silly.

How many different nautical miles were there before the First
International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference came up with the
international standard in 1929? Only an idiot like Tarver would think
it would be a good idea if that situation still existed today.

The U.S. nautical mile at that time was 6080.20 U.S. feet. The Great
Britain nautical mile was 6080.00 Great Britain feet, each of which
was about 4 parts per million less than the U.S. feet. so it was about
6079.976 U.S. feet.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:56:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 12 Nov 2003 13:02:14 -0800, (Pat Norton)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Gene Nygaard wrote:
> >> >>Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
> >> >>international nautical mile.
> >> >
> >> >It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British regional
> >> >definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was rounded
> >> >off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated (modern
> >> >British laws are metric).
> >>
> >> If that was in fact a redefinition, it is one of the silliest things
> >> I've ever heard of. It would have been better to retain the obsolete
> >> 6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition
> >
> >Yes, as *any* redifinition of the units of earth navigation is silly.
>
> How many different nautical miles were there before the First
> International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference came up with the
> international standard in 1929? Only an idiot like Tarver would think
> it would be a good idea if that situation still existed today.

The Nautical mile is the result of a Papal decree and from that definition
has changed to meet Man's understanding of the Earth's size and shape. As
with any scientificly based reference and measurement system, the nautical
mile has evolved as the science has evolved.

> The U.S. nautical mile at that time was 6080.20 U.S. feet. The Great
> Britain nautical mile was 6080.00 Great Britain feet, each of which
> was about 4 parts per million less than the U.S. feet. so it was about
> 6079.976 U.S. feet.

Non-sequitur, we are discussing crossing great distances, not the standard
75 millimeter penis of the technocrat.

[Gene Nygaard]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:51:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:56:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On 12 Nov 2003 13:02:14 -0800, (Pat Norton)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Gene Nygaard wrote:
>> >> >>Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
>> >> >>international nautical mile.
>> >> >
>> >> >It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British regional
>> >> >definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was rounded
>> >> >off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated (modern
>> >> >British laws are metric).
>> >>
>> >> If that was in fact a redefinition, it is one of the silliest things
>> >> I've ever heard of. It would have been better to retain the obsolete
>> >> 6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition
>> >
>> >Yes, as *any* redifinition of the units of earth navigation is silly.
>>
>> How many different nautical miles were there before the First
>> International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference came up with the
>> international standard in 1929? Only an idiot like Tarver would think
>> it would be a good idea if that situation still existed today.
>
>The Nautical mile is the result of a Papal decree and from that definition
>has changed to meet Man's understanding of the Earth's size and shape. As
>with any scientificly based reference and measurement system, the nautical
>mile has evolved as the science has evolved.

Straight from God, eh? Hard to argue with that.

Typical Tarverism. When ordinary bull**** isn't getting you anywhere,
invent a papal bull.

No stinking French pope, either, I'll bet. Must have been Nicholas
Breakspeare, the only English pope (and also founder of Nidaros, now
Trondheim, in Norway).

>> The U.S. nautical mile at that time was 6080.20 U.S. feet. The Great
>> Britain nautical mile was 6080.00 Great Britain feet, each of which
>> was about 4 parts per million less than the U.S. feet. so it was about
>> 6079.976 U.S. feet.
>
>Non-sequitur, we are discussing crossing great distances, not the standard
>75 millimeter penis of the technocrat.

At great distances, that difference between the various nautical miles
is only more noticeable.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:51:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:56:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On 12 Nov 2003 13:02:14 -0800, (Pat Norton)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Gene Nygaard wrote:
> >> >> >>Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
> >> >> >>international nautical mile.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British regional
> >> >> >definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was
rounded
> >> >> >off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated
(modern
> >> >> >British laws are metric).
> >> >>
> >> >> If that was in fact a redefinition, it is one of the silliest things
> >> >> I've ever heard of. It would have been better to retain the
obsolete
> >> >> 6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition
> >> >
> >> >Yes, as *any* redifinition of the units of earth navigation is silly.
> >>
> >> How many different nautical miles were there before the First
> >> International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference came up with the
> >> international standard in 1929? Only an idiot like Tarver would think
> >> it would be a good idea if that situation still existed today.
> >
> >The Nautical mile is the result of a Papal decree and from that
definition
> >has changed to meet Man's understanding of the Earth's size and shape.
As
> >with any scientificly based reference and measurement system, the
nautical
> >mile has evolved as the science has evolved.
>
> Straight from God, eh? Hard to argue with that.

Science of the time of the Papal Decree had estimated the number of statute
miles for the circumfrence of a round earth and the Pope went with the
science of the day. This decree was necessary to locate and register real
property and national boundries. The nautical mile was created to make up
for deficiencies in science's understanding of the shape and scope of the
Earth.

> Typical Tarverism. When ordinary bull**** isn't getting you anywhere,
> invent a papal bull.

I know a Clearance Nygaard that seems to be a pretty smart guy, Gene, but i
suspect one of your ancestors married a sister.

[Pat Norton]

Gene Nygaard wrote:
>It would have been better to retain the obsolete
>6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition

You could be right. However, that would not be consistent with the
purpose of the law. The purpose is to provide the courts with metric
values for imperial units used in the text of old laws that have not
yet been metricated.

The explanatory notes say:
*******************************************
"Where ... use is made in legislation, or in any deed or document ...
of an imperial unit ... these Regulations provide for its conversion
into the metric equivalent."
*******************************************

[Gene Nygaard]

On 13 Nov 2003 14:30:33 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

>Gene Nygaard wrote:
>>It would have been better to retain the obsolete
>>6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition
>
>You could be right. However, that would not be consistent with the
>purpose of the law. The purpose is to provide the courts with metric
>values for imperial units used in the text of old laws that have not
>yet been metricated.

Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.

Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.

That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units used in
the text of old laws."

So what purpose is served by introducing a new, significantly
different definition? One that still leaves you out of step with the
rest of the world??

And what about that implicit official definition of an hour? That
would result in an extra 3 d 9 h 22 min 5 3/8 seconds every Julian
century. Wreak havoc among the astronomers, I would imagine.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Gene Nygaard]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:03:08 GMT, Gene Nygaard >
wrote:

>On 13 Nov 2003 14:30:33 -0800, (Pat Norton)
>wrote:
>
>>Gene Nygaard wrote:
>>>It would have been better to retain the obsolete
>>>6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition
>>
>>You could be right. However, that would not be consistent with the
>>purpose of the law. The purpose is to provide the courts with metric
>>values for imperial units used in the text of old laws that have not
>>yet been metricated.
>
>Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.
>
>Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.

Correction: old law defined the yard as 0.9144 m.

They probably have to call on the common law to get from there to how
long a foot is.

But unless there's something in those powdered wigs that really fries
the brain cells, I think they could handle it, and figure out what a
nautical mile was in terms of the meter under the old law.

Gene

>That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units used in
>the text of old laws."
>
>So what purpose is served by introducing a new, significantly
>different definition? One that still leaves you out of step with the
>rest of the world??
>
>And what about that implicit official definition of an hour? That
>would result in an extra 3 d 9 h 22 min 5 3/8 seconds every Julian
>century. Wreak havoc among the astronomers, I would imagine.
>
>Gene Nygaard
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Nov 2003 14:30:33 -0800, (Pat Norton)
> wrote:
>
> >Gene Nygaard wrote:
> >>It would have been better to retain the obsolete
> >>6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition
> >
> >You could be right. However, that would not be consistent with the
> >purpose of the law. The purpose is to provide the courts with metric
> >values for imperial units used in the text of old laws that have not
> >yet been metricated.
>
> Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.
>
> Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.
>
> That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units used in
> the text of old laws."
>
> So what purpose is served by introducing a new, significantly
> different definition? One that still leaves you out of step with the
> rest of the world??

Such denial. :)

[Gene Nygaard]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:58:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:51:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:56:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On 12 Nov 2003 13:02:14 -0800, (Pat Norton)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Gene Nygaard wrote:
>> >> >> >>Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
>> >> >> >>international nautical mile.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British regional
>> >> >> >definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was
>rounded
>> >> >> >off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated
>(modern
>> >> >> >British laws are metric).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If that was in fact a redefinition, it is one of the silliest things
>> >> >> I've ever heard of. It would have been better to retain the
>obsolete
>> >> >> 6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, as *any* redifinition of the units of earth navigation is silly.
>> >>
>> >> How many different nautical miles were there before the First
>> >> International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference came up with the
>> >> international standard in 1929? Only an idiot like Tarver would think
>> >> it would be a good idea if that situation still existed today.
>> >
>> >The Nautical mile is the result of a Papal decree and from that
>definition
>> >has changed to meet Man's understanding of the Earth's size and shape.
>As
>> >with any scientificly based reference and measurement system, the
>nautical
>> >mile has evolved as the science has evolved.
>>
>> Straight from God, eh? Hard to argue with that.
>
>Science of the time of the Papal Decree had estimated the number of statute
>miles for the circumfrence of a round earth and the Pope went with the
>science of the day. This decree was necessary to locate and register real
>property and national boundries.

Are you talking about the papal bull associated with the Treaty of
Tordesillas? By one of the Borgias--Rodrigo Borgia, aka Pope
Alexander VI? Better if he were a French Pope!

So tell me, exactly how many minutes of arc are there in the
Portuguese legoas? Or the Spanish legoas? The units used in that
papal bull and treaty were one or the other of those, and the Italian
league was different from either of those.

>The nautical mile was created to make up
>for deficiencies in science's understanding of the shape and scope of the
>Earth.

Singing a different tune again, I see. That's been happening quite
frequently in this thread. So the nautical mile wasn't really handed
down to us by God through his representative on Earth after all.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:03:08 GMT, Gene Nygaard >
> wrote:
>
> >On 13 Nov 2003 14:30:33 -0800, (Pat Norton)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Gene Nygaard wrote:
> >>>It would have been better to retain the obsolete
> >>>6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition
> >>
> >>You could be right. However, that would not be consistent with the
> >>purpose of the law. The purpose is to provide the courts with metric
> >>values for imperial units used in the text of old laws that have not
> >>yet been metricated.
> >
> >Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.
> >
> >Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.
>
> Correction: old law defined the yard as 0.9144 m.
>
> They probably have to call on the common law to get from there to how
> long a foot is.

Or we could call on the common law for the yard and then Gene would have a
clue why the French wanted metres.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:58:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:51:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:56:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> On 12 Nov 2003 13:02:14 -0800, (Pat Norton)
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Gene Nygaard wrote:
> >> >> >> >>Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
> >> >> >> >>international nautical mile.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British
regional
> >> >> >> >definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was
rounded
> >> >> >> >off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated
(modern
> >> >> >> >British laws are metric).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If that was in fact a redefinition, it is one of the silliest
things
> >> >> >> I've ever heard of. It would have been better to retain the
obsolete
> >> >> >> 6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes, as *any* redifinition of the units of earth navigation is
silly.
> >> >>
> >> >> How many different nautical miles were there before the First
> >> >> International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference came up with the
> >> >> international standard in 1929? Only an idiot like Tarver would
think
> >> >> it would be a good idea if that situation still existed today.
> >> >
> >> >The Nautical mile is the result of a Papal decree and from that
definition
> >> >has changed to meet Man's understanding of the Earth's size and shape.
As
> >> >with any scientificly based reference and measurement system, the
nautical
> >> >mile has evolved as the science has evolved.
> >>
> >> Straight from God, eh? Hard to argue with that.
> >
> >Science of the time of the Papal Decree had estimated the number of
statute
> >miles for the circumfrence of a round earth and the Pope went with the
> >science of the day. This decree was necessary to locate and register
real
> >property and national boundries.
>
> Are you talking about the papal bull associated with the Treaty of
> Tordesillas? By one of the Borgias--Rodrigo Borgia, aka Pope
> Alexander VI? Better if he were a French Pope!

Funny you should mention the French, being that their love of the metre is
based on their envy of the English yard.

> So tell me, exactly how many minutes of arc are there in the
> Portuguese legoas? Or the Spanish legoas? The units used in that
> papal bull and treaty were one or the other of those, and the Italian
> league was different from either of those.

My goodness, when you lose your point, Gene, you really try to change the
subject.

> >The nautical mile was created to make up
> >for deficiencies in science's understanding of the shape and scope of the
> >Earth.
>
> Singing a different tune again, I see. That's been happening quite
> frequently in this thread. So the nautical mile wasn't really handed
> down to us by God through his representative on Earth after all.

Sure it was and as the Pope was infallable, he was obviously refering to a
nautical mile.

So now, Nygarrd, you have a small amoumt of knowledge to go with your
rediculess ego.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

[Pat Norton]

Gene Nygaard wrote:
>Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.
>Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.
>That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units
>used in the text of old laws."

Yes. But that requires an imperial to imperial conversion. The law is
merely a look up table of imperial to metric conversions.


>So what purpose is served by introducing a new,
>significantly different definition?

Good question. I don't know. Perhaps the old value was wrong.


>One that still leaves you out of step with the
>rest of the world??

The UK is in step with the rest of the world because it uses the same
international nautical mile of 1852 m that the US and everybody else
uses. The old unit is listed just in case somebody finds it in an old
piece of text. Their lawyers will not then spend time disputing the
regional effects of non-spherical abberations like we do in this
newsgroup.



>And what about that implicit official definition of an hour?

The problem is not the hour. The problem is comparing two imperial to
metric conversion factors that are not as precise as they could be.
This is common in conversion references.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pat Norton" > wrote in message
...
> Gene Nygaard wrote:
> >Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.
> >Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.
> >That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units
> >used in the text of old laws."
>
> Yes. But that requires an imperial to imperial conversion. The law is
> merely a look up table of imperial to metric conversions.

Yep, clueless technocrats with a calculator, but the Earth is still made up
of nautical miles; legally and navigationally.

> >So what purpose is served by introducing a new,
> >significantly different definition?
>
> Good question. I don't know. Perhaps the old value was wrong.

The science got better.

> >One that still leaves you out of step with the
> >rest of the world??
>
> The UK is in step with the rest of the world because it uses the same
> international nautical mile of 1852 m that the US and everybody else
> uses. The old unit is listed just in case somebody finds it in an old
> piece of text. Their lawyers will not then spend time disputing the
> regional effects of non-spherical abberations like we do in this
> newsgroup.

Nugaard is just confused.

> >And what about that implicit official definition of an hour?
>
> The problem is not the hour. The problem is comparing two imperial to
> metric conversion factors that are not as precise as they could be.
> This is common in conversion references.

The problem is the metre is not applicable to navigation.

[Gene Nygaard]

On 14 Nov 2003 09:38:09 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

>Gene Nygaard wrote:
>>Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.
>>Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.
>>That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units
>>used in the text of old laws."
>
>Yes. But that requires an imperial to imperial conversion. The law is
>merely a look up table of imperial to metric conversions.
>
>
>>So what purpose is served by introducing a new,
>>significantly different definition?
>
>Good question. I don't know. Perhaps the old value was wrong.
>
>
>>One that still leaves you out of step with the
>>rest of the world??
>
>The UK is in step with the rest of the world because it uses the same
>international nautical mile of 1852 m that the US and everybody else
>uses. The old unit is listed just in case somebody finds it in an old
>piece of text. Their lawyers will not then spend time disputing the
>regional effects of non-spherical abberations like we do in this
>newsgroup.
>
>
>
>>And what about that implicit official definition of an hour?
>
>The problem is not the hour. The problem is comparing two imperial to
>metric conversion factors that are not as precise as they could be.
>This is common in conversion references.

So those aren't definitions after all. Okay.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Gene Nygaard]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:01:01 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Pat Norton" > wrote in message
...
>> Gene Nygaard wrote:
>> >Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.
>> >Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.
>> >That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units
>> >used in the text of old laws."
>>
>> Yes. But that requires an imperial to imperial conversion. The law is
>> merely a look up table of imperial to metric conversions.
>
>Yep, clueless technocrats with a calculator, but the Earth is still made up
>of nautical miles; legally and navigationally.--++

So what happened to the papal bull, Tarver?

Too much trouble to keep track of the day's story, so you just make up
a new one every time you post?

>> >So what purpose is served by introducing a new,
>> >significantly different definition?
>>
>> Good question. I don't know. Perhaps the old value was wrong.
>
>The science got better.

But these advances in science only revealed themselves to the British
lawmakers, so they are the only one who changed the nautical mile to
1853 m. Likely story!

Exactly what did they learn in 1995 which made them think that 1853 m
is better than the 1852 m adopted by the hydrology conference in 1929,
the value adopted by the United States in 1954, and by pretty much
everybody everywhere in the world outside the United Kingdom?

Exactly what did they learn in 1995 which made them think that 1853 m
is better than the 6080 British ft the British had adopted even before
1929, or the 6080.2 U.S. feet that the United States used until 1954?

>> >One that still leaves you out of step with the
>> >rest of the world??
>>
>> The UK is in step with the rest of the world because it uses the same
>> international nautical mile of 1852 m that the US and everybody else
>> uses. The old unit is listed just in case somebody finds it in an old
>> piece of text. Their lawyers will not then spend time disputing the
>> regional effects of non-spherical abberations like we do in this
>> newsgroup.
>
>Nugaard is just confused.
>
>> >And what about that implicit official definition of an hour?
>>
>> The problem is not the hour. The problem is comparing two imperial to
>> metric conversion factors that are not as precise as they could be.
>> This is common in conversion references.

Pat, that particular conversion reference carries other conversions to
14 digits in the case of the dram (dram gram 1.7718451953125 grams)
and to 15 digits in the case of the "ton-force" (ton-force kilonewton
9.96401641818352) and 17 digits in the case of the foot-pound force.
It carries the conversions of the British thermal unit and the therm
to 15 digits, and nobody is going to have any measurements that use
more than 6 of them.

But while the old Admiralty mile could be expressed exactly with only
7 digits, they redefined one with only 4 digits. The knot conversion
is carried to enough places so that you can see that it differs from
what it would be if that 1853 m for the nautical mile were in fact a
new definition.

All of the other figures are exact, except for the conversion from
foot-candles to lux, which is the same as converting from square
meters to square feet. That one has 15 digits, and the conversion for
knots ought to be the same.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Pat Norton]

Gene Nygaard wrote
>>The problem is comparing two imperial to
>>metric conversion factors that are not as
>>precise as they could be.
>
>So those aren't definitions after all.

They are definitions. We just have to accept that:
1 UK knot = (1 UK nautical mile + 172 mm) per hour


>Exactly what did they learn in 1995 which made them
>think that 1853 m is better than the 1852 m adopted
>by ... everybody

The value of 1852 m is also adopted by the UK. The definition of the
'UK nautical mile' of 1853 m is for interpretation of historical text
written in the time before the UK accepted the international value.


>Exactly what did they learn in 1995 which made them
>think that 1853 m is better than the 6080 British ft
>the British had adopted

1. The nautical mile is supposed to provide an approximation of 1
minute of angle.
2. Because of non-spherical abberations of the earth, the
approximation can be wrong by tens of metres. Anyone that attempts to
obtain more precise distances could get into big trouble if they do
not know that.
3. The international value is based on the average over the whole
planet.
4. The UK value is calculated in a different way. I seem to remember
it being the value in the English channel, but do not quote me. So
1853 m might actually be nearer to the true value than 1853.172 m
5. Given that the true value at any point varies by tens of metres,
they may have rejected the idea of maintaining mm precision. The
question then becomes why did they abandon the precise relationship
with the knot.

Just some thoughts.


>But while the old Admiralty mile could be expressed
>exactly with only 7 digits, they redefined one with
>only 4 digits.

Quite. I really don't know the answer.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pat Norton" > wrote in message
...
> Gene Nygaard wrote
> >>The problem is comparing two imperial to

> 1853 m might actually be nearer to the true value than 1853.172 m
> 5. Given that the true value at any point varies by tens of metres,
> they may have rejected the idea of maintaining mm precision. The
> question then becomes why did they abandon the precise relationship
> with the knot.

Of course, only an technocrat would want to make mm measurements over a
minute of arc. It is as though Gene's mother is also his aunt. :)