Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A shallow drain is set out with the simplest levelling instrument in common use: a spirit level resting on a straight board, advanced station by station along a 100 m run. This study propagates the error of that instrument through the finished bed, using a stated single-reading error of 1.5 mm per station and a stated calibration bias of 0.3 mm per station, and asks what board length, or what number of repeated readings, keeps two acceptance limits: expected reversed-fall length at or below 1.0 m in 100 m, and 95th-percentile outfall height error at or below 10 percent of the total intended fall. At a gradient of 1:200 a 2 m board with single readings passes both limits, with an outfall error bound of 35.789 mm against a 50.0 mm limit and essentially no reversed fall. At 1:500 the shortest passing board is 6 m; a 2 m board already satisfies the reversed-fall limit (expected reversed length 0.383 m) but fails at the outfall (35.789 mm against a 20.0 mm limit), because the outfall error is dominated by accumulated bias and random walk rather than by local reversals. At 1:1000 no board up to 10 m passes with single readings: the best case, a 10 m board, still gives 12.297 mm against a 10.0 mm limit, and rescue by repetition alone requires 36 averaged readings per station on a 4 m board. The plain negative result is that a gradient of 1:1000 cannot be set to these limits by an unreversed hand board and level at any practical board length; it becomes reachable only when the level is reversed end-for-end at every station to cancel the bias, in which case a 10 m board with single readings passes at 9.297 mm, or an 8 m board with 2 readings per station. All results are simulated from stated assumptions, not measured. SIMULATED, NOT MEASURED.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Alexander Aldred (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: