This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
During a space shuttle mission you have noticed a map of the world and a location of the shuttle. You noted that shuttle flight path appears to be on a frequency graph with high and lows vs. and smooth line. Taking in account the tilt of the earth, what accounts for the irregular plotted flight path???
...?-- 190.56.85.26 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Not reflection to this discussion but to the article: straight lines on a lamberts projection do present great circles, although great circles are not exactly straight lines, but have a very gently concave curve towards the parallel of origine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.17.51 ( talk) 19:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Coriolis force does not affect an orbiting body. There must be some medium, such as air molecules, to transfer the force. A balloon would be affected by coriolis force. The orbiting shuttle is not.
This is incorrect, because the "Coriolis Force" is not actually a real force. It is a fictitious force for book-keeping in a rotating reference frame 199.46.198.232 ( talk) 15:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of a map projection is so that pilots don't have to carry big globes in the cockpit. All map projections have a degree of distortion.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmp717200 ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Are these formulas correct? Because when implementing them, the result looks quite weird. I think the and terms should actually read and , respectively. Ie. n instead of pi. Unfortunately, a quick search didn't yield another source using similar formulas, but the resulting map looks like it should with these changes. 84.56.14.232 ( talk) 00:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The formulas are incorrect as pointed out above. Wolfram has the exact same formulas but the values in question are raised to the power n instead of pi. [1] -- Davepar ( talk) 05:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This article really needs a "history" section. Who the heck was "Lambert"? When & why did he invent this projection? Who used it?
TIA.
SteveBaker ( talk) 12:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Lambert_conformal_conic.svg is misleading by displaying a secant cone which is not the cone on which the Lambert Projection is drawn. This seems to be a common misconception. For instance the webpage the description page refers to says the map is "Mathematically projected on a cone conceptually secant at two standard parallels." The image should be removed. -- Theowoll ( talk) 18:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I recently had an edit reversed, and I believe it is because of a misunderstanding about a secant cone projection. This is not what the Lambert projection is, and currently the article states that this is because the secant projection would result in unequal scales on the standard parallels. This explanation is incorrect and is not supported by the cited reference from NOAA. The reference does state two requirements for the Lambert projection. One is that the scales on the reference latitudes must be equal. It is not stated that the secant cone projection is in conflict with that requirement. In fact, it is not.
In the image here a secant cone projection is shown in profile. A right circular cone and a sphere share a common axis. They intersect on two circles, the reference latitudes. From the center of the sphere the sphere surface is projected onto the conic surface. The cone can then be cut on a generator, laid flat, and scaled.
Since the reference latitudes are intersections, they are invariant in the projection, and flattening the surface does not change the scale. There is a 1 : 1 scale along each of the reference latitudes, and these scales remain equal when the map scale is applied.
On these same latitudes, however, the north-south scale is not 1 : 1. Let arbitrarily small arcs of length s be drawn on the sphere surface in the north-south direction, straddling the reference latitudes. They are projected onto the cone, and the images have length s'. At these two latitudes the projection lines intersect the cone at equal angles, α. The projection is not orthogonal, and as s diminishes, the scale in the north-south direction approaches 1 : csc(α). This scale is again equal on both reference latitudes.
The scales on the reference latitudes are equal to each other. However, the north-south and the east-west scales are not equal. That is the other requirement in the NOAA notes. A conformal map must have this property at all points, not only on the reference latitudes. The secant cone projection is not conformal.
I will keep my fingers off the article for a few days, but if my explanation is not refuted with an argument, I will then change it back. -- Geometricks ( talk) 16:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lambert conformal conic projection SW.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 21, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-09-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lambert conformal conic projection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The article simply states that "conceptually, the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone," but it doesn't explain how this projection happens. As I wrote in a {{ explain}} tag I tagged the text with:
— Kri ( talk) 17:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
During a space shuttle mission you have noticed a map of the world and a location of the shuttle. You noted that shuttle flight path appears to be on a frequency graph with high and lows vs. and smooth line. Taking in account the tilt of the earth, what accounts for the irregular plotted flight path???
...?-- 190.56.85.26 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Not reflection to this discussion but to the article: straight lines on a lamberts projection do present great circles, although great circles are not exactly straight lines, but have a very gently concave curve towards the parallel of origine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.17.51 ( talk) 19:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Coriolis force does not affect an orbiting body. There must be some medium, such as air molecules, to transfer the force. A balloon would be affected by coriolis force. The orbiting shuttle is not.
This is incorrect, because the "Coriolis Force" is not actually a real force. It is a fictitious force for book-keeping in a rotating reference frame 199.46.198.232 ( talk) 15:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of a map projection is so that pilots don't have to carry big globes in the cockpit. All map projections have a degree of distortion.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmp717200 ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Are these formulas correct? Because when implementing them, the result looks quite weird. I think the and terms should actually read and , respectively. Ie. n instead of pi. Unfortunately, a quick search didn't yield another source using similar formulas, but the resulting map looks like it should with these changes. 84.56.14.232 ( talk) 00:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The formulas are incorrect as pointed out above. Wolfram has the exact same formulas but the values in question are raised to the power n instead of pi. [1] -- Davepar ( talk) 05:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This article really needs a "history" section. Who the heck was "Lambert"? When & why did he invent this projection? Who used it?
TIA.
SteveBaker ( talk) 12:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Lambert_conformal_conic.svg is misleading by displaying a secant cone which is not the cone on which the Lambert Projection is drawn. This seems to be a common misconception. For instance the webpage the description page refers to says the map is "Mathematically projected on a cone conceptually secant at two standard parallels." The image should be removed. -- Theowoll ( talk) 18:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I recently had an edit reversed, and I believe it is because of a misunderstanding about a secant cone projection. This is not what the Lambert projection is, and currently the article states that this is because the secant projection would result in unequal scales on the standard parallels. This explanation is incorrect and is not supported by the cited reference from NOAA. The reference does state two requirements for the Lambert projection. One is that the scales on the reference latitudes must be equal. It is not stated that the secant cone projection is in conflict with that requirement. In fact, it is not.
In the image here a secant cone projection is shown in profile. A right circular cone and a sphere share a common axis. They intersect on two circles, the reference latitudes. From the center of the sphere the sphere surface is projected onto the conic surface. The cone can then be cut on a generator, laid flat, and scaled.
Since the reference latitudes are intersections, they are invariant in the projection, and flattening the surface does not change the scale. There is a 1 : 1 scale along each of the reference latitudes, and these scales remain equal when the map scale is applied.
On these same latitudes, however, the north-south scale is not 1 : 1. Let arbitrarily small arcs of length s be drawn on the sphere surface in the north-south direction, straddling the reference latitudes. They are projected onto the cone, and the images have length s'. At these two latitudes the projection lines intersect the cone at equal angles, α. The projection is not orthogonal, and as s diminishes, the scale in the north-south direction approaches 1 : csc(α). This scale is again equal on both reference latitudes.
The scales on the reference latitudes are equal to each other. However, the north-south and the east-west scales are not equal. That is the other requirement in the NOAA notes. A conformal map must have this property at all points, not only on the reference latitudes. The secant cone projection is not conformal.
I will keep my fingers off the article for a few days, but if my explanation is not refuted with an argument, I will then change it back. -- Geometricks ( talk) 16:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lambert conformal conic projection SW.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 21, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-09-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lambert conformal conic projection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The article simply states that "conceptually, the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone," but it doesn't explain how this projection happens. As I wrote in a {{ explain}} tag I tagged the text with:
— Kri ( talk) 17:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)