Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


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

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: The mil as a unit of angle.
    From: Richard M Pisko
    Date: 2003 Mar 14, 00:09 -0700

    Back before the dawn of time (on Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:50:24
    -0400, to be exact), "Trevor J. Kenchington"
    >Richard Pisko wrote:
    >>  the old points on a compass rose can
    >> be matched to even numbers on the US mil system.  For
    >> example: 0 is North and 1600 is East.  800 is NE.  400 is
    >> NNE.  200 is N by E.  300 would be NE by N, I think.
    >> I have no idea what would correspond to 100mils.
    >North one-half East
    Thank you.
    >300 mils would be North North East one-half North. There is no such
    >thing as North East by North, which would be a full point northward from
    >North East and so identical to North by East (i.e. 200 mil).
    Right.  N by E (200), I see that now, and halfway to NNE
    (400) from there is NNE 1/2 N (300) because it is an odd
    hundred mil number.  You mean I got the others right?  :-)
    But would not 600 mils be NE by N since 800 mils is NE?
    >odd-numbered points are always named from the nearest cardinal or
    >ordinal point (e.g. North or North East), not from the intermediate
    >("inter-ordinal"?) ones like North North East.
    >50 mil would be North one-quarter East and 150 mil North three-quarters
    >East. Again, the quarter points are named from the nearest cardinal or
    >ordinal point.
    So Hitchcock's "North by North West" is a valid designation
    of the direction ... (looking for some paper) ... 5800 mils?
    Or perhaps 326-1/4 degrees?
    >Now that wasn't really so hard, was it?
    Thank you.  I thought I learned to box the compass up to 32
    points a great many years ago, but I didn't remember the
    half points except as a term in sailing.  Even the 32 were
    obviously blurred in my memory.
    >(Not to compare with the
    >complexity of lunars as a way of telling the time anyway!)
    Umm...  Where could I find something that explained the
    lunar system?
    There was a brief time period during the French Revolution
    that used a 10 (long) hour day of 100 (long) minutes per
    hour, and ... 100 (short) seconds per minute?  Was one of
    the units called a lunar?  I had a reference one time, but
    it seems to be gone.  Checking the web, I discover there is
    the one time zone, X time, based on dividing the day into
    100,000 as the unit, and starting the day at midnight (zero)
    on the international date line.  Seems similar.
    >Trevor Kenchington
    Yours truly,
    Richard ...

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    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 Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    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