![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 I seem to remember it being the value in the English channel, but do not quote me.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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. ![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Edwards air show B-1 speed record attempt | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 146 | November 3rd 03 05:18 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |