Hallo, hallo........ is this thing workin'........1 2 3
testing.......OK..
You Know listers , it's always bothered me that the radar used to
evaluate a speed is always at an angle to the approaching object, this
must surely introduce an inaccuracy in the measured speed, and no I
don't want to get into a discussion of the Max Plank theory of particle
physics. Also like Jon pointed
out other factors are involved too.Heat, material,light
refraction,angle,density of medium,and so on.
So was that speed really that speed or should we now introduce a factor,
'corrected', like the drag racing boys do. Am I being pedantic, or what,
so what do you think.......DK...........Over.
=====================================================================================================
Jon Hobden wrote:
>
> List
>
> At the risk of stirring another hornet's nest, as an electronics engineer
> involved in radar design I am used to measuring time routinely to
> resolutions of 0.00000001 second (though it's of no use unless that
> measurement also has ACCURACY traceable to National Standards).
>
> But I have been intrigued for some time, following some discussions in Fast
> Facts on the numbers of significant figures quoted on speeds, as to the
> accuracy of the surveyed mile and kilometre courses. Can anybody involved
> shed any light on this? Somebody mentioned checking temperatures of
> "tapes" - does this mean that someone goes out on the salt and tries to
> pull a mile of measuring tape straight? And how orthogonal are the traps
> to the axis of the measured mile?
>
> And I'm not looking for an argument (was that a ten minute one or the full
> half hour?) but I think we're all old enough to remember the discredit done
> by the Bud Rocket "record" fiasco.....
>
> Jon Hobden in Horley
> (Donald Campbell's birthplace)
|