How to figure out a stationing problem in Surveying land?

Question

I'm in an Elementary Surveying Class, and last week we went over some stuff on surveying but I can't get this question using the notes I got so I'm gonna see if anyone our here can help me.

I was given 2 stations on a horizontal line. One station was called Sta 10+00, the other is Sta 17+46.32 how do you figure out the distance between? I was also given a manhole that is 112.43ft to the east of Sta 17+46.32 how do I figure out the station of the manhole?

Answer 1

The number to the left of the "plus" is the number of even chain lengths. For american work, a chain is usually 100 feet long. so the distance from sta 10+00 to 17+.... is 700 feet plus a remainder. In the example the remainder is 46.32 feet, making the distance 746.32 feet. In the old days, measuring a line required setting a pin every chain pull, or 100 feet, so the terminology of stations was common. The rear chain man would pull the pin after each measure, so when the destination was reached, the total distance was the number of pins the rear chainman had times 100.

I am not sure if the direction "east" represents an increase or decrease in the line of stations. Assuming an increase, 112.43 feet is 1 complete chain plus a remainder of 12.43 feet. Add 1 to the station number 17 and then combine the remainders, 18 + 58.75. If the direction instead back-tracks toward sta 10 + 00 then you would subtract the distances making it 16 + 33.89

Answer 2

Surveying Station

Answer 3

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/axazv

Hi Paul, The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) excuse is relentlessly peddled by deniers of global warming in an attempt to undermine the theory of global warming. The problem is that the UHIE excuse doesn’t hold water. In fact, as excuses go it’s perhaps one of the worst conceived ones there are. For a start, the changes observed in the global temperature record and not temperatures measured on an absolute or relative scale, they’re anomalies compared to a base figure period. In this respect, it makes no difference what the actual temperature is, the key factor is how the temperature has changed over a period of time. If for example, a surface station was sited in the middle of a car park, then provided it is still in the middle of a car park, the readings will be of relevance. What the station will have measured is how much the temperature has changed over a period of time. Of course, if the station was in a field which has subsequently been paved over and turned into a car park, then any readings will be useless due to the fact that the surrounding environment has changed. The UHIE excuse might have had some validity to it back in the 1970’s, but since then we’ve been using satellite telemetry to record temperatures at every point on the planet. The extent of the observed warming is consistent in both rural and urban locations. The argument also fails to explain how or why the greatest amount of heating is being observed in the more northerly latitudes – places such as Scandinavia, Siberia and the Arctic. If the argument had any validity to it then it would be the cities of the world which indicated the greatest degree of warming – which they don’t. Further, the UHIE is just as pronounced in cities during the day as it is during the night, it’s also just as pronounced in calm conditions as it is in windy conditions. In this respect the deniers argument fails to account for the heat received from the Sun (which is bizarre considering that this is the source of virtually all the heat) and nor does it account for dissipation of heat through radiation or convection. In fact, the UHIE argument can’t account for anything. It’s nothing more than a very lazy excuse used by some people who, it seems, have no idea what they’re talking about. Either that or they have a propensity to lie and deceive. The article concerning the lakes that you brought to our attention is further confirmation of the invalidity of the UHIE argument. As expected, the greatest levels of lake warming have been observed in the mid to high northerly latitudes – exactly where the satellite observations show the highest levels of atmospheric warming to be. Extending beyond lakes, we find exactly the same thing is happening in the oceans. Unless there are major cities underneath the oceans (Atlantis perhaps?) then the urbanisation argument once again falls flat on it’s face. To answer your specific question “Does this finally dispose of the “heat island” argument?” Alas, I suspect it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to most of the deniers. We know only too well from experience that they have an irrational fear of facts and will go to great lengths in order to avoid being exposed to anything that could shatter their delusions.

Answer 4

Last winter I went to a market in central London early on a Sunday morning from the outskirts of London. When I left home, the external temperature display on my dashboard showed -4C, as I drove in the centre, it gradually rose to 0C, as I drove home, it gradually fell back to -4C. The alarmist lobby have go through elaborate statistical acrobatics to try and get rid of it, as they have tried with the Medieval warm period. While direct observation and common sense will tell you that the UHIE is real Edited to add comment: There is no such thing as a climate change denier. It is simply an abusive term invented by AGW fanatics to enable them to dismiss scientific challenges without answering them. I have never thought or claimed anywhere that the climate is not changing. As an environmental scientist, I know that the climate is constantly in a state of change. It is the 'man made, catastrophe soon' doctrine that I consider to be grossly overstated. It is now the warmist lobby that is in denial about climate-gate