Dear Marcus, Brij, and All, I have inserted some notes.
on 2002-07-19 04.53, Ma Be at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Yes, Brij, I do realize that. However, the 2*pi stuff is just a no-no, as we > both know. Therefore, we're left with basically two options. Either consider > the whole circle as a 'unit' (and what I mean by a unit is taken the whole > circle measurement and attach it to a unit value, i.e. 1, or 10, 100, 1000, > ..., you get the picture...), or use the 'quadrant' (Pat's approach). Thanks for that reference, Marcus. One of the reasons to rename the quadrant a quad was to have a single syllable word to which we could readily attach prefixes. > There are significant gains to be made, especially in the aviation world, if > we stuck with Pat's approach, since 0.01 or the new arc value would be equal > to 1 km. Simple, effective and irresistible argument to finally ditch the > silly nautical mile and knot stuff. Angles would be from now on quoted as > xxx.xx grades, end of story. However, if we use quads and milliquads (rather than grades) we may be able to give the illusion that we are moving forward toward a brave new world of aviation units � rather than resuscitating some old naval terms from the eighteenth century and their unfortunate associations with 'silly nautical mile and knot stuff'. > As for the subdivisions of time, if we can agree on the decimal nature of > making one full day a "unit" (which, in this case, 100000 seconds would sound > as the most reasonable construct - and perhaps the ONLY one...), then we're > all set, Brij! :-) I will not comment on the issue of time � as you know I think it better to treat the issues of angle and time separately. Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia
