NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: dip, dip short, distance off with buildings, etc.
From: Bill B
Date: 2006 Jan 8, 01:24 -0500
From: Bill B
Date: 2006 Jan 8, 01:24 -0500
Bill, you wrote: "I let go of your Chicago observations" Frank replied: "They're not dead yet!" Great! Rather than pay sleuth working backwards from your estimate of horizon distance of 4-5 miles (statute for Lake Michigan charts, or nautical miles?), do you recall an approximation of your height of eye for the beach shots? If so, may I subtract appropriate dip from the sextant readings? Frank: "Just today, I finally got around to measuring the heights of the towers in question above lake level..." And? Drum roll please... Now IF the nice tour-guide ladies on the river architectural cruise are correct, lakefront real estate was basically a landfill after the Chicago fire (and Louis Sullivan was a form-follows-function architect?). And given the Chicago River is higher than lake level, coupled with empirical observations, the "base" of the buildings in question should be 30-40 ft above nominal lake level. No accounting for which level of a multi-level city the base is on, or burms and drainage consideration. So give! Inquiring minds want to know.Bill
