![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
AltitudinalElevationation
Nov. 8th, 2019 03:32 amOne of the lil' fun things I really like is having an altimeter gauge in the car with the rest of the gauges, mainly so I can track the subtle climbs and descents that I might not feel in the accelerator pedal, and thus I can make adjustments in pedal pressure to try for the best mileage (during times when traffic is mild of course). It also answers questions as to why the coolant temperature might be slightly higher or lower at a given time.
I've tried just a few, and have had mostly satisfactory results with both GPS and pressure standard types. I also am cognizant of cost and have kept the limits in a sensible lower range of budget. :> As much as I dig analog stuff, in this case I prefer digital due to the potential difficulty of seeing the analog changes while driving. I also tried an inclinometer briefly, but that is too affected by acceleration.
The ones that measure based on atmospheric pressure are fairly standard and must be calibrated, plus one needs to take into account the more extreme variations of weather that may affect them, even if it's not all that worrisome.
The pressure one of choice is the Celestron TrekGuide. At $30 it was a steal, and is amazingly accurate and easy to read.
The GPS one I've used the most is my Magellan car GPS unit. At $105 it is also the only one of the standalone GPS units that has the elevation feature, which uses satellite triangulation, so it's not affected by weather, but it does need minor calibrations once in while. Where the pressure based unit can be off 20 to 100 feet (not dreadful), the GPS unit doesn't seem to err more than about 10 to 20 feet.
The Celestron is much more portable, with long lasting CR2302 batteries. The Magellan takes a charge when plugged into the car socket, but it doesn't hold it for more than 15 minutes or so (since it's not really meant for out-of-car usage, but it sure would be nice).
Of note, the most fun readings I've ever gotten were when I took these traveling on airplanes. They both gave useful information, but in different ways.
The GPS based one showed the *actual* altitude in flight, whereas the pressure-based one showed the cabin-pressure-simulated altitude :D (which was about 7,500 when I tested it). I've read that the international standard is 8,000 or below so that's right there in the ballpark.
Good measurements to you all!
I've tried just a few, and have had mostly satisfactory results with both GPS and pressure standard types. I also am cognizant of cost and have kept the limits in a sensible lower range of budget. :> As much as I dig analog stuff, in this case I prefer digital due to the potential difficulty of seeing the analog changes while driving. I also tried an inclinometer briefly, but that is too affected by acceleration.
The ones that measure based on atmospheric pressure are fairly standard and must be calibrated, plus one needs to take into account the more extreme variations of weather that may affect them, even if it's not all that worrisome.
The pressure one of choice is the Celestron TrekGuide. At $30 it was a steal, and is amazingly accurate and easy to read.
The GPS one I've used the most is my Magellan car GPS unit. At $105 it is also the only one of the standalone GPS units that has the elevation feature, which uses satellite triangulation, so it's not affected by weather, but it does need minor calibrations once in while. Where the pressure based unit can be off 20 to 100 feet (not dreadful), the GPS unit doesn't seem to err more than about 10 to 20 feet.
The Celestron is much more portable, with long lasting CR2302 batteries. The Magellan takes a charge when plugged into the car socket, but it doesn't hold it for more than 15 minutes or so (since it's not really meant for out-of-car usage, but it sure would be nice).
Of note, the most fun readings I've ever gotten were when I took these traveling on airplanes. They both gave useful information, but in different ways.
The GPS based one showed the *actual* altitude in flight, whereas the pressure-based one showed the cabin-pressure-simulated altitude :D (which was about 7,500 when I tested it). I've read that the international standard is 8,000 or below so that's right there in the ballpark.
Good measurements to you all!
