Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Frank: welcome back (and questions)
    From: Bill B
    Date: 2012 Mar 28, 05:33 -0400

    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
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site