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: Size of a nautical mile
    From: Clive Sutherland
    Date: 2009 Jan 18, 09:14 -0000

    Just a thought, If instead of the canal, putting in a pipe with a tap and a turbine would this give a perpetual source of power!  

    Clive.

     

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: NavList@fer3.com [mailto:NavList@fer3.com] On Behalf Of Peter Fogg
    Sent:
    15 January 2009 22:26
    To: NavList@fer3.com
    Subject: [NavList 7078] Re: Size of a nautical mile

     

    Simplicity.  That's my understanding; that 1,852m = minute of arc at sea surface was adopted as being appropriate for practical naviagtion in the zones of latitude where most nav gets practised - ie; excluding high latitudes around the poles.

     

    When it comes to precision there is no end to potential discrepancies.  After the earth's oblate shape come the uneven surface of the oceans: there are local hills and valleys, the Pacific and Atlantic don't share the same levels (one reason the original, simple through-canal, plan for the Panama Canal was doomed to failure, as it would have resulted in a non-stop rush of water surging from one side to the other).  The Pacific even has different levels on the eastern side compared to the western.  Each time the level of the sea changes so does the length of a minute of arc mesured along its surface.

    On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Lu Abel <lunav{at}abelhome.net> wrote:


    As has been pointed out, the length of a degree of latitude varies from
    pole to equator.

    The nautical mile is supposed to equal a degree of latitude.   Today,
    however, it is defined as precisely 1852 meters.

    When one multiplies 1852 by 7200 (the number of minutes in 90 degrees),
    one gets 10 000 800 meters as an answer.

    My understanding is that the distance from equator to pole is 10 002 000
    meters.   It's a small discrepency, on the order of 0.01%, but I'm
    wondering why it was allowed to stand instead of defining the NM more
    precisely.
    <br

    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
    Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1895 - Release Date: 1/15/2009 7:46 AM


    --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
    Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
    To post, email NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, email NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
    -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

       
    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)