> Ok Darrell, I'm with you on how to line up the marks. Actually I finally
>figured it out this afternoon after playing with it for a while. The thing
>I
>don't quite understand is why there are only 8 marks either side of the
>middle "on" mark. There are more than 8 tenths in a whole. With this theory
>you could not adjust for 9 tenths on this scale. I think I also have the
>answer though...I believe there are only 8 marks because each mark
>represents 7.5 minutes of declination. 8 x 7.5 = 60, one degree.
> Am I correct here, or out in left field?
>
>
>Stan Rife

Hmmm, I have never counted the marks, I had always assumed that there were
ten, and so each would be 0.1 degrees. But this is an assumption based on
my normal use of degrees in life. In my profession (Radar Systems Engineer)
I deal with degrees in decimal form, not Dec, Min, sec. Your assumtion
above makes sense with only 8 marks. Then again you only need five on
either side for the 0.1 degree aproach to work. For 0.6 plus any mark would
be 0.4 minus from the next higher full degree.

Darrell

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Pointing Accuracy, Bill Arnett
Next message: [M]: Sporadic "runaway DEC", Frederick Paul Kiesche III
Next message in thread: RE: [M]: Dec bearing modification, Wyatt, Michael A.
Previous message in thread: RE: [M]: Dec bearing modification, Stan Rife