Expedition Navigation Software

**NorthU Expedition Webinar** - presented by two time America's Cup winning navigator -Peter Isler.

Two time America’s Cup winning navigator, Peter Isler will be conducting three new online webinars through NorthU during the early part of 2017. And all of Peter’s 2016 round of acclaimed Expedition webinars are available now for streaming through NorthU.

**NorthU Expedition Webinars **

**Sign Up here **

Index » Suggestions for new features and capabilities » Damping/averaging of SET and DRIFT. Polar vs. Cartesian system
##

### Damping/averaging of SET and DRIFT. Polar vs. Cartesian system

##

### Re: Damping/averaging of SET and DRIFT. Polar vs. Cartesian system

Index » Suggestions for new features and capabilities »
Damping/averaging of SET and DRIFT. Polar vs. Cartesian system
NMEARemote by Zapfware. Remote access to Expedition Channels from iPad and iPhone devices

Two time America’s Cup winning navigator, Peter Isler will be conducting three new online webinars through NorthU during the early part of 2017. And all of Peter’s 2016 round of acclaimed Expedition webinars are available now for streaming through NorthU.

**1** of 1

**JohnA****Expert**Offline

- Registered: 2/06/2017
- Posts: 12

As of now in Expedition (as it looks to me), SET and DRIFT are averaged separately as elements of a current vector of length and angle (Polar coordinate system).

I think it would be better to average current in a Cartesian coordinate system (as Current-x, Current-y) and then present the result as in the usual polar way.

One advantage would be that when averaging in the cartesian system you can average out measurement noise to 0.

Example:

You sail an area with 0.1 kn DRIFT, 180° SET real current. You have a current measurement noise (eg. due to GPS position noise) vector of 0,2kn average in random directions. When averaging as presently in a polar system, you get a measured current of something like DRIFT 0,21 kn and 180° SET.

If you do averaging in a cartesian system (and assuming that you can average over a longer time than the time constant of the noise, which should be possible for current) you get a correct reading of 0.1 DRIFT and 180° SET.

I assume you would still present and log current as SET and DRIFT. In the user interface, the only change could be that it would only make sense to state one damping time, valid in both x and y directions. Under the Setting>Channels one could replace the "Current, Drift" and "Current Set" damping options with a "Current" damping option. Or keep "Current, Drift" and "Current Set" on the Channels page but state that "Current Drift" damping is valid for all currect calculations and Current Set has no effect. (if this is easier to implement).

**Nick****Moderator**Offline

- Registered: 9/16/2015
- Posts: 592

That is probably a good idea. They are currently damped separately.

**1** of 1