NavList:

   

Reply

Mr. Pisko,thanks for your help and thoughts on this method.I am going to
start using this method,because of the ease, exclusively instead of the
angle and ref. dist. method I was using.Useing either the 100:1(10 mil) or
10:1 (100 mil) ratio will work just fine.I did the field experiment to prove
or disprove to myself,only,that this system will work.I have proved to
myself that it does indeed.As long as my math was correct I am satisfied.I
am not looking for that great of an accuracy in field
measurements.Approximations in the field will be fine.The reason I went to
all the trouble of measureing the angular distance as accuratly as I could
was to assure myself that the method can be as accurate as needed.In the
field paces etc. will suffice.
The math is as you wrote it in your responce of 04-05 is what I was trying
to convey.As long as my method of calculating the distance is correct the
experiment was correct.
The Bussol compass has 6,000 at North marked in 2 mil increments and number
marked every 5 increments on the outside edge of the card and 0 to 360* on
the inside.It is twice the diam. of the Cammenga and has very good lens.It
also has a nifty attachment that I beleve measures inclination or
elevation,as it was an arty compass,but I have no documentation for it.
It sounds like you are familiar with artillery theory.Were you trained in
it?I am becoming fascinated by it and have ordered some manuals.If you would
like to discuss this subject off list I would like to learn.

   

Reply