Interesting history from wikipedia
So no one answered my question about formatting it for display. I'm guessing to leave it be and don't monkey with like I can with d.ms values.
Then again, looking at article above and the table towards the bottom for example: given
'AR185.11525'
I could show:
185g 11c 52.5cc
If I can figure out how to superscript the suffixes, I will.
Eric,
as far as I know there's no deed for extra formatting.
129.4521 g. is wat it should read, no c and cc required. (Keep It Simple)
Let me know if you need some data to test with,
I can only deliver Trimble dc and old Leica gre files.
chr.
I wouldn't bother, the reason for the gon was to eliminate the conversion to minutes and seconds in the first place so angles could be represented by a decimal number.
What I am curious about is why 400? Is there something in the logarithms or trig tables that make 400 a good number?
Simple,100 g For Each Quadrant
To maintain N, E, S, W as primary directions.
One dislike is the loss of the beauty of a 30-60-90 triangle.
Paul in PA
Thanks Chirstof, I would like some more test data.
Vern, I get the impression 400 is used to break up the quadrants in even hundreds.
OK so I am looking too deep for an answer, I forget that the answer is always 42.
Simple,100 g For Each Quadrant
At least you still have a 100-50-50.
> I wouldn't bother, the reason for the gon was to eliminate the conversion to minutes and seconds in the first place so angles could be represented by a decimal number.
>
> What I am curious about is why 400? Is there something in the logarithms or trig tables that make 400 a good number?
Since it is a part of the metric system setting a quarter circle at value of 100 maintains the base 10 (and multiples there of) throughout the system. Also when working with trig tables one quadrant and +/- symbols is sufficient to define the entire circle.
EDIT: Also would note that four decimals provides approximately the same calculation accuracy as one second or four decimal places of a degree.
100.0000 g Is Three Times As Accurate As 90°00'00"
For example a Leica 0.3" theodolite is an 0.0001 g theodolite.
Paul in PA
Maybe you mean PRECISE??
just wunderin :-S
I'm wondering as well
You might claim that since 100 gons is the same as 90° that a gon is a small part of a circle, but gons are not more accurate than degrees. It just depends on how far you carry things out.
No, the answer is always .....
get ready for it ......
.04. 🙂
100.0000 g Is Three Times As Accurate As 90°00'00"
ACCURATE? to 0.3" Maybe the display will read that but precision and accuracy is another question.
No, the answer is always .....
.042 just sayin'B-)
I Said Accurate, I Meant Accurate
In the fields of science, engineering, industry, and statistics, the accuracy of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to that quantity's actual (true) value.
The discussion is regarding the measurement system, not the measurements. The gon system to 4 places is more accurate than degrees/minute/seconds to 4 reported places.
The precision of a measurement system, related to reproducibility and repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results.
An 0.3" theodolite is more precise, than a 1" theodolite.
I was referring to the comparison of reported least count.
Paul in PA
I Have Used An 0.3" Theodolite To 0.3" Precision
Paul in PA
I Have Used An 0.3" Theodolite To 0.3" Precision
What model Leica is that? I've never heard of such a thing. I googled a little bit and found one that reads 0.3" but the specs didn't back it up.
Actually I missed that even. It's 0.3 mgon.
16 D & R As I Recall
Paul in PA
I Said Accurate, I Meant Accurate
I see 😀
100.0000 g Is Three Times As Accurate As 90°00'00"
Leica currently does make an instrument that is accurate to 0.5". Both the TM30 and the TS30 can be purchased as 0.5" or 0.15 mgrad.
