| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> On Fri, August 5, 2005 2:55 pm, Nick Kappatos wrote:
> > If I remember right, the way we resolved this for real-world surveying problems
> > and the like was to convert the degrees 180 < x < 360 into negative values
> > relative to 0/north. 350 is -10, 270 is -90, etc.
> >
> > If x1 > 180
> > then x2 = -(360 - x1) or x1 - 360
> > This makes your numbers relative to 0. You can then convert back if the average
> > is a negative number:
Oops, there was a mistake in my first equation above that I've corrected here,
in order to give a negative number.
> > If avg1 < 0
> > then avg2 = 360 + avg1
>
> Don't you get the same problem at 180, now?
That's why I have " > 180", not "> or equal to 180" ;)
Since the question was framed in relation to 0, that's what my answer is
(supposed to be, in the original answer) is in relation to.
> 170 + 190 = 170 +(-170) = 0
> I think there are several readings that can give you more than one result. For
> example, if you take two readings of 90 and 270, what should the answer be? 0?
> 180?
If the average of many data points is zero (std deviation not withstanding),
then one can determine that the wind is truly north/south oriented or utterly
and completely random.
I guess in surveying, we only cared about what was in front of us.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: OT: Math Help
|
| (...) Don't you get the same problem at 180, now? 170 + 190 = 170 +(-170) = 0 I think there are several readings that can give you more than one result. For example, if you take two readings of 90 and 270, what should the answer be? 0? 180? never (...) (19 years ago, 5-Aug-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
