Californian 5 or 6 miles off My Challenge

[John M. Feeney]

David: Thanks! I'll stay tuned for more.

Parks: No argument implied, just a question! It does seem odd to me that this varies just as a *general* observation. (But, of course, that's why I put that "big" in quotes -- it's not really ALL that big, but it is interesting and potentially significant at higher values.) Was I quibbling?? My question really didn't have anything to do specifically with Californian.

As for what difference it might make, well, it *could* be a typo. MANMAR's formula, reproduced at the web site I mentioned, didn't include the square root portion until I pointed out that omission. Likewise, David's "6076 ft." led me to realize that my own edition of "Pocket Ref" contains an error. Rather than 6076.1, it claims "6067.1"! And I do kind of like to get these things straight myself. ;^)

Anyway, I've since seen a copy of "Norrie's" tables which appear to use a factor around 1.155. So we have thus far 1.14, 1.144, 1.15, 1.155, 1.169, and 1.17, none of which I've in any way "fingered" for veracity. But since I did notice it, I thought I'd ask. If anything, I'm as interested in whether any of these formulae purport slightly different results based on "average" versus "perfect" viewing conditions, etc.

S'alright?
John

 

[Claire McConville]

"Lord himself stated in the American Inquiry that they had a pretty powerful morse lamp that should have been seen at about 10 miles"

If that statement is correct it makes you wonder why they bothered seeing as they were supposedly 19 miles away

 

[Claire McConville]

I see that I'm almost 2 years late for this one... excuse my tardiness

 

[Timothy Trower]

Sam Halpern has written a four-part article dealing with the relative positions of the Titanic and the Californian that started running in the current "Titanic Commutator," issue No. 177.

As the blurb on the THS website states ( http://www.titanic1.org/ ) "Sam Halpern, a systems engineer, private pilot and former yachtsman with a celestial navigation background who has done extensive analysis in navigation, naval architecture and wireless telegraphy begins another incredible piece of research with a four-part series on what the officers and crew on Californian saw on April 14 and 15 1912."

I had the opportunity to read and review this article in early March, and, while not wanting to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the "Commutator" yet, will still say that Sam has done an excellent job of taking an extremely complex subject and distilling the mathematics of it to prove, not from conjecture, but fact, that the Californian and Titanic were indeed within visual contact that night. (No 20+ miles, either!)

I am not at liberty to send the remaining parts to anyone nor to post excerpts -- but the next year is going to see some good discussion on this subject.

Congratulations to Sam on a very well written series of articles!

 

[Darin James Miller]

The 24 hr wireless. Now the California r/o was asleep and dint hear anything that the Titanic sent. How close were the two ships when this happened?

[Moderator's Note: This message, originally posted to a thread in the "Aftermath" topic, has been moved to this thread addressing the same subject. MAB]