NavList:

   

Reply

On 3/28/2012 12:27 AM, Alexandre E Eremenko wrote:
> P.S. There was an interesting but long discussion on our observations
> with Bill on lake Mich which were all 10' less than computed.
> We did not come to a consensus on this. There is a resume under the title
> "Trying to summarize: Extremely poor conditions..."
>
Alex

There is a story about a woman with a huge rear end.  She went into a
dress shop and tried on a dress with a bow in the back below the waist
line. She asked the salesperson, "Does the bow make my bottom look big?"

The salesperson replied, "It doesn't solve the problem Mam, but it does
shift the blame."

For the longest time I thought we were beating a dead horse.  At this
point I feel you have catapulted the discussion into the realm of sadism
and bestiality.

Lest we forget, the bulk of the observation are yours using your sextant
and my sextant (the one with the allegedly huge side error).  There are
also my observations with my sextant. Therefore I have some vested
interest in why my observations were 10' off. I like good results too.

Scientific objectivity mandates that I pursue your theory with the same
vigor that I or the list pursued 9 days of record-breaking
conditions--possibly resulting in highly-abnormal dip/refraction.

At this juncture I'll point out my "atomic" clock is nothing more than a
quartz clock that receives a broadcast signal once a day to update the
clock. Unless receiving a signal, it functions only as a quartz time
piece. If a hiccup occurs it is almost certainly going to be during an
attempted signal reception.

To that end I have tried to subjected my "atomic" clock (henceforth
referred to as RCC--Radio Controlled Clock) to every condition the NIST
web site states can result in erratic performance--poor signal, poor
signal-to-noise ratio, and electromagnetic interference.

I have placed my RCC against the USB Bluetooth mouse transceiver on my
laptop running WiFi while in the 3-seasons room.  I had it seek out the
broadcast signal during the afternoon when the signal is weaker. I also
repeated the experiment around midnight when the signal is much better.
No hiccups.

I repeated the above experiment in the kitchen, with a running microwave
20" above the RCC.  No hiccups.

Later I took it to the basement of my brick residence where it could not
receive a signal. Here I placed it within 6" of a desktop computer &
monitor with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and butted it against a
WiFi router.  I repeatedly caused it to look for a signal.  No signal,
but still no time jump.

The RCC is currently in a fireproof lock box against the basement wall
facing Colorado. It will remain there for a week before its time is
compared to NIST computer time (when the NIST site lists error as
possible 0.2 seconds or under). If it malfunctions I will report that to
the list immediately.

There are two reasons for this experiment:
1. Placed back in its usual location, will it update without incident?
2. Determine drift when it is operating only as quartz clock.

The night before our 17th observations I let the RCC auto update so it
would be as close to spot on as possible, and checked it against the GPS
(my quest being sub-second differences).

The day of the 17th observations we both compared the RCC against the
GPS on site, and found a sub-second difference. You also checked your
watch and decided you had a 1-second watch error.

The RCC did not attempt to receive signals during our observations.

I checked the RCC against the GPS before and after the RCC updated the
evening of the 17th observations (looking for sub-second differences).

You suggested off list I should ask the list about the GPS vs. RCC time.
  I did, my concern being the sub-second difference.  You replied off
list with a joke about a museum tour guide claiming a mummy was 5002
years old.  How did he know so precisely? Because it was 5000 years old
when he started working there 2 years ago. Your position--there are 10'
of an arc to account for--forget seconds (of time). I had no inkling
then it was my mission to move the blame toward the bow instead of the
buttocks.

I did indeed walk out to the lighthouses, and take a walk along the
beach while you were doing observations.  I do not know what timepiece
you were using, but you did tell me you had included watch error in some
of your calculations. One *might* read that to mean you were using your
watch instead of my RCC.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the Great Lakes.  When we drove through
the St. Joe Municipal West Basin did you see any boats *not* on the
hard?  Did you see any boat with its winter cover off, or anyone working
on their boat?  At dinner, did you see any boats in the slips by the
restaurant? For reference, work on boats begins in late April, boats
start to go in the water mid May or later. Add a month to that schedule
for the upper end of the lower peninsula. There may still be ice on the
upper Great Lakes in June.

What we witnessed were extraordinary--once in our lifetime--conditions.
A magic-bullet, one minute of time, can bring our observations inline.
The problem with that theory is it assumes by-the-book dip/refraction
and totally dismisses the extraordinary conditions..

An undergraduate university friend of mine who lives in Beverly Shores,
the southern-most tip of Lake Michigan, called tonight. He remarked on
the cold, damp low fog that rolled in at sunset during the warm streak.
Much as Frank reported, and I submit a possible cause for the nasty
dark-gray horizon we saw after sunset on the 13th and 17th.

You can't embrace extraordinary conditions.  I cannot wrap my arms
around a "magic bullet" theory that ignores two watermelon-size buttocks.

I'm half of the belief that if we sat on the beach/waterline we may have
gotten different results. Or the end of the pier. Scenic and convenient
as it was, my judgement in an observation location was--in
hindsight--questionable.

Point, counterpoint: Statistics *are* admissible in courts. Is every DNA
match 100%, or are they probabilities?

Many states employ engineering firms to compile statistics for use in
courts.  For example, the average braking distances for automobiles.
Please see:
http://www.accidenttech.com/va_code.html

End of Rant

Bill B

   

Reply