Hear Hear!!!
I have now retired but will continue to be active through an Emeritus
Fellowship using this e-mail address.
From: CF-metadata on behalf of Nan Galbraith
Sent: 30 July 2018 19:22
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Platform He
Point of order!
I'm in favor of less specific definitions; other attributes can be
used to describe methods and ... whatever else is needed.
On the other hand, planning to change a definition to something more
specific at some point in the future is not good for CF. If I label
something
as hea
Hi Nan,
By platform at rest I mean a situation where pitch=0, roll=0, yaw=0, heave=0
etc. I'm now seeing a tilted platform, such as an out of balance deck load, as
a coupling to the next level of CRS, so your last statement is absolutely spot
on.
Cheers, Roy.
I have now retired but will co
Hi Ken,
You're absolutely right - should have been platform_yaw_angle. Getting the
detail spot on in these things isn't easy, which is why we have discussion
lists!
With the way I'm currently seeing things I don't agree that pitch and roll
affect the definition of heave. They are only factor
Hi John,
Think about my last posting. Heave is only relevant to the internal platform
CRS. How it couples to other CRS, such as a 3-D platform locations, may well
differ for different types of platform, but that should not be a concern of the
heave definition.
Heave has a lot in common with
Hi all -
I like Ken K's definitions; simple and to the point; And I agree that
we need to be explicit
about positive direction (which term, by the way, doesn't google well).
I'm not sure I agree with Roy that 'zero is platform at rest' - could
you please explain
that? By 'at rest' do we mean
1) Now that we have another platform_heave comment, could we please create a
new thread for the discussion on pitch/roll/heading? Maybe starting without
all the historical points, at least the heave-related ones? Both are difficult
conversations to follow in sequence.
2) I have a concern about
