Thanks,

I originally suspected a typo for KM but then it reappeared. A
nanometer, I believe, is 1 x 10-9 meters, meant as an in joke.

Enjoy your trip.

Gene.

On Fri, 22 Dec 1995 PAGODROMA at aol.com wrote:

> Gene Hunn wrote:
>
> >
> >Pardon my ignorance, but does "nm" stand for "nanometer"? How far is that?
> >
> >
> nanometer??!! never heard of one and couldn't find it in my dictionary (not
> a big fancy one -- just a standard) either. If there is such a thing, I'd
> guess it must be something really really tiny. :)
>
> nm = nautical miles. Ooops, sorry. That's the standard used at sea which
> makes far more sense than statute miles (mi). One minute of latitude = one
> nautical mile (nm), only slightly more than one statute mile; one degree of
> latitude = 60 nautical miles (nm), etc. However, the metric system using
> meters and kilometers is more often recognized and used among the highly
> educated scientific elete among whom I am not.
> But let's face it -- going metric at sea never made much practical common
> sense to me. It's awkward, and you can't run to a navigational chart and
> quickly figure out where some thing, or some place at sea is, or how long it
> is going to take to get there without wasting time calculating pointless
> conversions while Cook's petrels are getting away.
> On land (bravo!! Canada!) the metric system is logical and makes perfect
> sense. Under normal operating situations, vessel navigation equipment are
> programed to calculate distances in nautical miles and there are even pocket
> calculators specifically for that purpose as well. Further, a vessel's speed
> is calculated in knots, and one knot = one nautical mile per hour. Metric,
> meters, kilometers, etc. is just way to complicated unless you have some fine
> tuned specific research objective that demands it and everything can be
> programed to do that. But does it really matter whether some bird is 125 km
> off Westport or ~75 nm (I don't have the conversion at my finger tips)?
>
> Most major scientific journals however expect if not require that all
> distances be published in metric form, I think. In lesser ones and those
> whose readers are a more mainstream lay audience, one often sees miles (mi)
> and nautical miles (nm) used interchangably for sightings of pelagic birds at
> sea. I assume that in probably all of those cases, miles (mi) probably was
> meant to imply nautical miles (nm) since the individual providing the
> information likely obtained that information from a simple navigational
> chart. I've been a proponent of change for years, but cast common sense to
> the wind; you can't buck the system and a long standing established
> tradition.
>
> For provincial birders, we generally place our state, N.A., and international
> list boundaries at the 200 nm EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) sometimes called
> FCZ (Fisheries Conservation Zone), or in the case of international
> boundaries, wherever that line might be. Every country that touches an ocean
> has one. That's why the US and Canada engage in fisheries wars from time to
> time. ...which brings up another but unrelated comment about the US / Canada
> offshore boundary EEZ/FCZ. You know, we here in Washington have really
> gotten ripped off, especially me, with that line dipping SW off Cape
> Flattery toward Gray's Canyon. We should simply trade off Point Roberts, for
> god's sake, just to straighten that line out to run due west from the middle
> of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Could a WA / BC birding war may be on soon?
> After we settle Bosnia, we can tackle that one ...but I digress.
>
> Most major scientific journals however expect if not require that all
> distances be published in metric form, I think. In lesser ones and those
> whose readers are a more mainstream lay audience, one often sees miles (mi)
> and nautical miles (nm) used interchangably for sightings of pelagic birds at
> sea. I assume that in probably all of those cases, miles (mi) probably was
> meant to imply nautical miles (nm) since the individual providing the
> information likely obtained that information from a simple navigational
> chart. I've been a proponent of change for years, but cast common sense to
> the wind; you can't buck the system and a long standing established
> tradition.
>
> Richard Rowlett <pagodroma at aol.com>
> Bellevue, WA, USA
>