Funniest.
Post.
Ever.


EDIT:
For Pisces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facepalm

Ok, never considered that. Thank you so much for explaining it with a picture of my favourite captain. :up: Yes, I told you I'd agree.

8010 teaching method: a bit lonely
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...eys/lonely.gif

Another view of this thread: actually the horse was stillborn.
No actual ideas were harmed in the making of this illustration.
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a.../beathorse.gif

Leaving the 8010 method:
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...eys/hangin.gif

as i said, i am using it with success, so not only has it been proved, its been used with success, the oposition still fails to prove otherwise, except with assumptions, not scientific, not anything but opinions, and like a-holes, everybody has one.

love how you just blow off pics, movies, math, diagrams, whatevr that has proved it. love how you dont even try, thats probably a skill factor:rotfl2:

anyway, bs like that doesnt stop me, a right triangle is a right triangle, the opposition likes to make it a circle, square, cylinder, whatever, anything but what it is. theres nothing that can be known about a right triangle.

the proportions of a right triangle are the same, no matter what its size,
basically im saying this part to joe.

i dont know joe, but i dont see a date on that formula, if you have proof it is pre ww1, then i would like to see it,
other than just, its just an opinion again.

the pics of auto tdc, did anyone look at those, or did you all just look the other way, that was at 2000 yards, i brought that in from 15.7 nm in the test mission, still the same proportions, 2000 yards, 15.7nm, and i guess this is the stuff that shoots rockets and spaceships into space, to the moon, and to mars, or wherever, but thier just assuming the moon and mars and the angles will be there to just let the spacecraft land there all by themselves.

lets put it this way, a trip to mars is alot farther way than 15.7 nm,

maybe they use telescopes to visualize the trip, and thats how they steer the spacecraft, because im told we need to visualize a target in order to hit it.

i guess the opposition is really not part of the MIT brain pool they think they are.

addressing jjoe again, i have used those things, thier not really anything that could be called a magic bullet, i have and have used kim ranoff's,
its no big deal, and no magic bullet joe, it sits on my desk and collects dust, i just dont use it.

and thats a good point you brought up about ww1, when there was no tdc's available, ships were still sunk, how did they do that, especially when you yourself stated that those is /was's were invented after ww1.

those atttack couse things your talking about are nothing but calculators, nothing it can do cant be done with pencil, paper, and math.

the american tdc was invented in 1936,
and all that is is a calculator for all the angles and distances, nothing super about that, and i might add, only as good as the information given to it, the information still has to come from a human being with a brain to think, try putting in bad info, or nothing into the tdc, see how good it works for you.:rotfl2:

i like it the way it stands right now, i be the only one, it makes me different, and i like the difference.:cool:

and whats so wrong about visualizing, or adjusting, or whateer was said i dont even remember, useless information flows in and out of me fast, like pieces posts, long on wind, short on substance. i have failed to read an entire post by him, its boredom, after the first sentence. and why would i ever listen to a man who names himself after an astrology sign, maybe thats how he get his solutions, he reads his horoscope in the newspapers everyday, whats your horoscope for today pieces?:rotfl2:

below is from the sonar manual.

What the TDC is
TDC stands for torpedo data computer. It is located in the conning tower usually close to the WCA sonar stack. it has many dials. Six of these dials show six main types of data: own ship's course, own ship's speed, target's course, target's speed, target's range, and target's bearings. The TDC takes in all these pieces of data and shows on its face a solution, in terms of relative bearings. Since some of the dial settings can be only approximate (like target's course and target's speed), the TDC operator checks the TDC solution with the bearings reported by sonar. As long as the sonar bearings and the bearings of the TDC solution agree, he assumes that his other settings are correct. But as soon as they begin to differ, he tries changing the settings on some of his dials, until the two bearings agree again.

if you didnt understand that paragragh, then you better read it again and again until you do, because most here posting think the tdc is infallible.
surprise, surprise.

i have nothing more to prove about 8010, nothing! i will post the torpedo information, your free to use it, or discard it, whatever your fancy, i dont care.

i will be done after that, and ill move on to torpedo offsets, where the opposition is invited to come, but next time, leave your drama at the door.

You keep setting up right triangle test missions, then "prove" to us that if you know two angles, the third can be found. My 6 year old could do that. You entirely fail to understand that you keep setting up a special case, then you generalize that since you can solve a known triangle, that ALL trinagles are therefore identical to your test case.

Scenario:
Target on 80 degree bearing has an AOB that is very likely not 10, but is held at constant bearing by your sub moving at 4 knots. It is a closing target.

You don't know the range, and you are NOT on a 90 degree intercept (look, I made it easy, you can discount one angle!).

What is the target's speed and AOB?

You should be able to do this using your method, right?

Duh, the AoB is ten, of course.:know: And I figured that out without using any magic TDC, too! Its because all triangles are right angles.

:nope:

It's because NONE OF YOUR DIAGRAMS/MOVIES/POSTS HAS PROVED IT.

I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're just entirely clueless. Really.

This should be renamed the 'tenuous method'. Greyrider doesn't seem to want to see the problem. It really can't be that difficult to see can it? He seemed fairly switched on and it seemed he knew what he was on about in that link that Rockin' Robbins posted, so I'm having trouble understanding just why it can't be explained to him. I can only conclude that he either doesn't want to see the problem, or is deliberately ignoring it.

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...Frustrated.gif
Words fail to explain the stupidity....

Hold it! Here it is! Here's how it works!
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...d1f277e9-1.gif

He was right all the time. This video proves it!:up:

He's on a collision course with himself. Eventually he'll poke himself in the keister!

RR- Point succinctly and brilliantly taken! :up:

He absolutely right. He's living in his own world made up with nothing but right triangles. Maybe even worse, just 80-10-90 ones. I pitty the fool, for never being able to see a bee's work, a snowflake, or the five-fold symmetry of the pentagon.

Also, how stupid of me to forget! You can prove one's own point by making ridicule of others, completely ignoring what they say. Just because you don't want to. For a fact, I do not consult the newspapers for my today's experiences. Or those of tomorrow. I learned myself how astrological predictions are generated to claim it's validity. (Which is more than you are able to claim. Brass statement huh?) And it didn't involve glass spheres. (which I can't say for the 8010-90 method) Do not resort to the stereotypical behavior of the ignorant. It says more about you than it does about me. Now, can we please get back on the subject?

How do we force the 90 degree to appear?

Also, what's up with that test mission you once uploaded? How come nothing enters hydrophone range within over an hour? How are we to replicate what you did in it?

Well gentlemen... this has been fun, but all good things...

So seeing as you have broken just about every rule there is here on Subsim I am going to have to finally throw out a flag on this play.

Argue all you want and keep the name calling out or agree to disagree. Either way I'm fine. But let's not go on like this, K?

Thanks

JCC

I didn't read the whole of your post Pieces, because it was too long, but I'm sure you're right.

I mean Pisces. I don't think you'll get an answer - no one else has and it's been asked about ten times, or maybe 80 times.

Let it die. We've had our fun.:D

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...ileys/ORly.gif

Note the right angle of the lines on the end of the table proving the cats use 8010 to properly hit the ball.

Actually the thread should be kept open. What I would very seriously propose is all of us "naysayers" to stop bringing up questions about the method (we're already bordering mazochism here anyway). Let the thread open, so as people who try to implement 8010 can come forward and share with the rest of us their successes or failures and ask questions or seek guidance on how to improve their technique, from grayrider.



.