Runway re-numbering

Doesnt a gyro compass always point to true north, providing its set correctly?

And what exactly happens to compasses in the southern hemisphere?

They still point to North....convention I guess.

You could if you wished ,very easily produce a compass that pointed South but that would be confusing to say the least.

From what I know of magnetic north it is stronger than the southern magnetic pole, but apparently every million years or so the magnetic poles flip. So I suppose one day all compasses will point south!

This is quite good if you have an interest in geology - like me -

www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/reversals.html

An interesting link HA - although , unless I misunderstand it , it seems to contradict itself....

"We also know from studies of the magnetisation of minerals in ancient clay pots that the Earth's magnetic field was approximately twice as strong in Roman times as it is now.
Even so, the current strength of the magnetic field is as high as it has been in the last 50,000 years"

...or am I just reading it incorrectly?

Carnaby;65431 wrote:

Many many exceptions to that Ian - this is the Air Ministry we're talking about who seemed to have banned the use of the work 'consistency'.

As you say many stations had the northmost runway (even though slightly west of north) as No.1 (Dumfries, High Ercall, Sleap)

However a very large number had the first runway clockwise from true north as the main (Barrow, Dalton, Tholthorpe)

Then again many were neither of the above, and had the main runway as No.1 (Desborough, Molesworth, Perranporth),

To add complexity:
Runway 2 was usually clockwise from No.1 - not in the case of Lichfield !

Most airfields had the ends numbered one to six (for a three strip station), but a very large number had the numbers duplicated, e.g. both ends of the main were 'No.1' (Bramcote, Tempsford, Hunsdon)

These systems were clearly to 'fool the enemy' - well they've certainly confused me .

No wonder its differcult to research history if they cant be uniform about such things . . . .

Thanks for the up-dated info, Carnaby

Daveg4otu;65546 wrote:

An interesting link HA - although , unless I misunderstand it , it seems to contradict itself....

"We also know from studies of the magnetisation of minerals in ancient clay pots that the Earth's magnetic field was approximately twice as strong in Roman times as it is now.
Even so, the current strength of the magnetic field is as high as it has been in the last 50,000 years"

...or am I just reading it incorrectly?

Hmm I cant quite get my head around it either, but I suspect there is a logical explanation to whats been written, however, Im not that clever to be able to work it out !!!