On 15/02/2011 19:34, Yigit Turgut wrote:
>> I don't say I don't believe your story. Just that the place where you ra=
n your tests seems out of this world.
> Road is 30 degrees which made it worth for me to share beneath the
> efficiency. I do not have detailed information about the test
> environment (like coordinates) but it was in Elazig/Turkey where the
> structure is mostly consisting of rocks, hills and mountains.There is
> no sea at 500km diameter and I didn't have the equipment to measure
> the air pressure so I don't know my  distance relative to sea level
> but it cannot be lower than a few meters. If you assume the start
> point is at sea level then you should be right with your numbers 4 - 5
> km's.

I just had a quick look on Google Maps out of interest.
I can't find anywhere within a ~20km radius of Elazig where the=20
elevation is above ~1600m (there were no mountain symbols around I could=20
see.
The lowest point I found was ~1000m, so that gives roughly a maximum 0f=20
600m possible climb.
Comparing with a place that I visited on a skiing trip - Leysin,=20
Switzerland, which I recall had some very steep roads - I checked this=20
out and found a climb from 500m to 1952m in ~4km (as the crow flies)=20
which IIRC is pretty much straight up a mountain side with no roads, but=20
even that is "only" ~20 degrees. I imagine any actual roads around there=20
are not anywhere near as steep (not enough time to investigate further=20
right now though)
Also, on the video the gradient looks pretty flat too - are you sure you=20
didn't mean 3 degrees, 1:30, or something?




--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.