|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: Alexandre E Eremenko (no email)
Date: Fri Jun 16 2006 - 00:44:06 EDT
Bill,
> There may be case based on irradiation(?).
3.5' of irradiation seems to much.
> Also try some polarizing sun glasses to
> reduce the glare off the water.
> What shoreline/waterline?
You can see the location from which observation was
taken on the satellite photos or maps. And the shoreline too.
The shoreline was pretty far.
There were certainly no waves between the shoreline and me.
> I am hardly learned enough to speak to terrestrial refraction anomalies.
> Read through the Frank's beach shots from Indiana thread.
I did. I found no talk on anomalous refraction,
and Frank was apparently satisfied with his observation
(based on the difference of height of two Chicago buildings).
I found the beginning of this trend on October 10.
Am I missing something?
> (If I recall Frank's and my calculations placed him too close. (In
> all fairness, Frank was initially playing with the difference of building
> heights, not equal distance from his position.)
But he said that "all of this can be made more precise".
You can take into account the difference of distance to the two
buildings etc. It is harder to take into account the difference
in elevation of the BASES of the two buildings over the lake level,
but Chicago is flat enough:-)
Anyway, I have not seen any complain on inconsistencies in
Frank's messages on the subject.
> Based on Frank's data he believes there was a thermal inversion
Where have you read all this??
> Let me know if you try upper-limb vs. lower-limb observations, and how it
> works out.
The observations I posted included BOTH upper and lower limb.
There was no difference: the error was -3.5 in the everage,
independent of the limb.
Alex.
|