"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Very good - I'm surprised CM didn't know this because its rather fundamental. Basically,
features will be wider on the screen by the beam width. "Inside" features, such as a cove
or entrance that are smaller than the beam width will disappear. Buoys that are closer
together than the beam width will merge. As you point out, RB wouldn't see the entrance
at Port Jeff until he's within a mile.

This is the real reason to get larger antennas, which have a smaller beam width.

BTW, where did you get your numbers? They correspond to statute miles. We use nautical
miles here, not baby miles.


Blame it on a trawler website:
http://lists.samurai.com/pipermail/t...il/010427.html

I had a hunch that was a c&p job - it was too fast and too glib. It also explains the
statute miles - trawler jockeys use baby miles in the ICW.

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:12:19 -0400, Simple Simon wrote:



That's easy - here's a more complete answer than the other one I
just gave you.

Beam width is important in bearing resolution. All targets are
widened by the effective horizontal beam width. If the beam width
is 4 degrees, two targets that are one mile off will appear as one
if they are closer together than 370 feet. At two miles the targets
must be separated by 740 feet, at 24 miles a six degree beam width
would merge objects that were almost 1.68 miles apart. This can
make interpretation of the display difficult. Suppose you are
trying to find a harbor mouth that is 370 feet wide. Radar won't
pick it up until you get closer than a mile.

Get it?

S.Simon - a Captain who's a navigational phenom.

LOL, cut & paste without attribution. Tsk, tsk. The source of the
above:

http://lists.samurai.com/pipermail/t...il/010427.html

What!!?? The hell you say!! How could you doubt my word Bob? I'm the
epitome of honesty and truthfulness... while you are a known fabricator of
stories, a deceiver and self proclaimed thief. You have told so many lies
that you now are confused between truth and fantasy.

It's truly pathetic to see you scream Liar!... and realize you have no
recourse but to hope and pray that you can defuse the attack by sending your
accuser to find proof.

Ain't gonna happen.. No No No!

You claimed I was lying... Prove It!

CM


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| BUSTED and caught in another lie!
|
|
| Oh dear... he's wailing again.... I did not lie Bob!
|
| So then prove it and show everyone what an honest man you are. Where is my
post
| where I said I can't read a radar?
| While your at it, where is the post where i claimed to be sailing with no
| charts?
| Hmmmmmmm?
|
| BUSTED!
|
| RB

Ghost are multiple targets that you pick up from the same actual target
on your radar screen.

Jeff Morris wrote:

What is ghosting?
-j

Wally wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

So perhaps you or Neal can explain to everyone how the horizontal
beam width affect the image.

I would imagine that it would have an effect not unlike ghosting.

I've never tried to cross my eyes and eat a dounut Bob..

Why doesn't this surprise me???

Bwahahahaha!

RB

Ain't gonna happen.. No No No!

You claimed I was lying... Prove It!

No problem. Here's the original post.

"I see no reason to have Suzanne learn the radar until she has a good grasp of
basic nav skills."

Now, mooron, you claimed I posted I could not read a radar, based on the above
post. Ozzy and I both called you on it. You ARE A LIAR and it's now PROVEN.

Thanks...I AM GOD HERE!

RB

Subject: Radar and Basic Nav.
From: "Capt. Mooron"

Maybe these people are the same ones with spatial difficulties. I haven't
seen anyone that has had a problem understanding a radar image... tuning
radar is a little more complicated ... but not out of the realm of the
newbie.

On the contrary, I've seen and continue to see quite a few. Problem with many
is they are unable to relate the picture to the chart, since they are looking
down at the full view of an area, on a chart, they have a problem relating
their "surface" view to the chart, where some things , such as headlands will
blend, or their horizon will not allow them to match visually with that which
the radar shows.
It is, to a degree, a spatial awareness thingy G but hard to learn for many
and one that takes practice or a natural tendency to do well.

On a good percentage of newer radars, tuning is not really all that hard
.....knowing when to detune and to what degree, can be harder.

While I concur that Basic Navigation is primary obstacle to overcome... a
radar in use to confirm your plots and verify relative bearings is perfectly
fine.

No argument and if you have the money, definitely get one, but .......

The days of high tech being utilized only on large ships is over.
Navigational instrumentation is now available to the layman and the general
population's ability to embrace technology has increased dramatically.

LOL I'd say that ended years ago. I've seen some smaller yachts with better
equipment than larger ships.


Shen

I think this was the comment:

"Yup, works great. For most of the night we had it one to look out for storms.
It was not needed to make the entrance. While Suzanne is learning basic nav,
the radar may confuse things since we're pretty new to it."

Frankly, I think you should have left is on so that you can learn more about radar, while
Suzy learned the serious stuff.


Bobsprit wrote:
Ain't gonna happen.. No No No!

You claimed I was lying... Prove It!

No problem. Here's the original post.

"I see no reason to have Suzanne learn the radar until she has a good
grasp of basic nav skills."

Now, mooron, you claimed I posted I could not read a radar, based on
the above post. Ozzy and I both called you on it. You ARE A LIAR and
it's now PROVEN.

Thanks...I AM GOD HERE!

RB

Subject: Radar and Basic Nav.
From: "Simple Simon"


I can see where practice, practice, practice and a mind
that can understand is vital for a radar operator. This is
yet another reason I think there should be a navigator at
the helm of large ships. Let the navigator navigator - let
the Captain steer according to input from the navigator.

S.Simon - a Captain who knows how things work


Gawd you're funny!! You don't have a clue as to what's going on, on the bridge
of a ship, do you?

Shen

Not only should he have left it on but he is REQUIRED
BY LAW to leave it on.

RULE 7
Risk of Collision
(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the
prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision
exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.
(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational,
including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk
of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of
detected objects.

1) Booby is operating illegally and a hazard to navigation.

2) He is in violation of the above Rule and should be fined.

3) I'm going to forward his post where he admitted to turning off
his radar set to the authorities. Somebody needs to require
he sit down and learn the Rules before he is further allowed
to endanger the saftey of mariner.

S.Simon - a Captain who takes sailing seriously


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
I think this was the comment:

"Yup, works great. For most of the night we had it one to look out for storms.
It was not needed to make the entrance. While Suzanne is learning basic nav,
the radar may confuse things since we're pretty new to it."

Frankly, I think you should have left is on so that you can learn more about radar, while
Suzy learned the serious stuff.


Bobsprit wrote:
Ain't gonna happen.. No No No!

You claimed I was lying... Prove It!

No problem. Here's the original post.

"I see no reason to have Suzanne learn the radar until she has a good
grasp of basic nav skills."

Now, mooron, you claimed I posted I could not read a radar, based on
the above post. Ozzy and I both called you on it. You ARE A LIAR and
it's now PROVEN.

Thanks...I AM GOD HERE!

RB